Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physical appearance of Michael Jackson


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Delete, WP:BIO issues and consensus (see discussion this page) ~Kylu ( u | t )  01:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Physical appearance of Michael Jackson

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Speedy Delete! Oh. My. God. Full of points of view, article has one source-and Oprah interview from years ago. This fails WP:N, suerly any worthy infomation (if there is any) can be merged with Michael Jackson? Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 19:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Total WP:BLP nightmare. wikipediatrix 19:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - this article is about a subject which has received extensive media coverage, and is notable. Unsourced material can be removed. The Evil Spartan 19:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Arguably, but that doesn't make the subject vast enough for its own page. Any noteable and sourced content can be merged into Michael Jackson. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 19:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * More importantly, if "extensive media coverage" were enough to justify such an article, then we could easily make a case for Physical appearance of Tammy Faye Messner, Physical appearance of Kirstie Alley, Physical appearance of Mickey Rourke, Physical appearance of Madonna, Physical appearance of Mike Tyson, Physical appearance of Britney Spears, etc., etc. Gossip doesn't equal news, and neither equal encyclopedic. wikipediatrix 19:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not quite. The physical appearance of Michael Jackson is far more notable than the physical appearance of these other subjects: it receives much more coverage, yes, even than these people. The difference with those people is those are passing appearances, and Michael Jackson's has been of note for years. Besides, I believe your argument is, exactly WP:WAX. The Evil Spartan 20:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You say it's notable, but saying doesn't make it so. And WP:WAX is for someone who uses the other articles (or lack thereof) as deletion criteria. I'm not. I simply pointed out the parallels to illustrate my point that editorials aren't reliable sources. My deletion criteria is that it's a non-notable subject proven by its lack of reliable sources, an inherent WP:BLP violation, and probably a POV/content fork as well. wikipediatrix 20:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:WAX is for someone who uses the other articles (or lack thereof) as deletion criteria. I'm not. I simply pointed out the parallels to illustrate my point that editorials aren't reliable sources. What? No offense, but those two sound like the same thing. And, are you really claiming there are no reliable sources on this issue? I find 198 google news hits right now alone, and 33,900 articles in the google news archive. Even if only 1/3 of those were on topic, are you still going to claim that 10000 articles from sources like the Washington Post, BBC, ABC news, etc. (the list goes on) leaves a lack of reliable sources? I can't fathom why you're trying to use this argument. 20:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not going to argue with you anymore. Anyone who peruses those Google news hits you mention can decide for themselves the usefulness of them in a properly encyclopedic context. wikipediatrix 20:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:WAX is not a policy, it's just an essay, so I don't know why everyone is arguing about it. Useight 23:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Everything in this article is already in Michael_Jackson. --Targeman 21:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, already covered in the main article on Jacko. Kill this now. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 21:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete All the useful information is already in the main article, where it is much better covered and sourced. This fork adds nothing to it. Iain99 21:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete any encyclopedic treatment of this sensitive topic can, and should, be done on the main page. --Haemo 22:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per non - awful article too I note, I hade hoped to at least be able to have a good laugh. Bigdaddy1981 22:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think it is suitable to have a separate article about that especially since it appears there is OR.--JForget 23:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete; it's original research if nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coren (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. This info, any of it that is considered encyclopedic, should be in the main article.  Seems like an implausible redirect discussed in R3.  Useight 23:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete looks like it already has a section in the main article, as it should. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Already merged, as it has too little content to exist separately. However, if it were a lot longer, and written neutrally, with citations, I would support spinning it off, to prevent undue weight in the main article. (By the way, this should redirect to the relevant section, instead of being deleted.) Ab e g92 contribs 06:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Surgically merge into one of Michael Jackson's articles. Mandsford 18:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Michael Jackson. Seems to be OR-ish but moreover nothing that should be in a separate article. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, subject has received so much attention that it should be covered in a separate article. Everyking 00:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.