Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Jackson (personal life)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was No consensus, but since there are more merge votes than keep votes (I count 9d, 7m, 2k), this defaults to merge and redirect to Michael Jackson. --Deathphoenix

[edit] Michael Jackson (personal life)

Delete, or at the very least, merge any useful content and redirect. For the second time, an effort has been made to segregate all details of Jackson's personal life into a separate article, on the pretext of "shortening" the main article. The last time it was tried, this idea was shot down unanimously. The Michael Jackson article, before I reverted it, was little more than a laundry list of Jackson's musical accomplishments with a few personal details thrown in. The only indication that this fork existed was a small notice at the top of the article. Refactoring the content in this way is simply not appropriate for a biographical encyclopedia article. android79 04:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per Android79 Ruby 04:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge back as content fork. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 04:24Z
  • Delete as POV fork. Peyna 04:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The article could use a good amount of trimming in all respects. Once that is done in the appropriate manner, I think most of you will see that it is no longer too long. Peyna 12:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merege per Quarl. --Terence Ong 04:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge back any appropriate content, then delete (since it appears there are no incoming links). I don't like large pages, but I feel his "personal life" should be dealt with on his "personal article". — TheKMantalk 05:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: the article has been edited since it was moved. If the edited content is merged, the article cannot be deleted. A redirect will be necessary to preserve attribution. -- Kjkolb 05:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Fair enough =D — TheKMantalk 05:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Content was not actually "moved" from Michael Jackson, but copy-pasted. Deleting this fork will have no affect on content history, aside from any changes subsequently made to Michael Jackson (personal life) that need preserving in the main article. android79 12:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
      • That's what I was talking about when I said edited content. :-) Some content has been changed and some has been added since it was copied and pasted. -- Kjkolb 02:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
        • D'oh, I didn't realize that KMan initially voted "merge and delete". My bad. android79 03:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "'Merge'" as discussed in previous AfD Funky Monkey 07:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Michael Jackson article is very long. I think it is better to reduce it to a summary, with more separate articles on subtopics. Thus the Michael Jackson article contains one or more sections on his personal life, while Michael Jackson (personal life) gives details. This is not a fork. If Michael Jackson (personal life) is too broad as subtopic, we can split it up.--Patrick 09:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I have split off Michael Jackson home, recreation, friends, charity.--Patrick 11:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I like this new split even less. :( —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-30 11:46Z
  • Redirect back to main article. I don't see the need for a merge, as the content originated in Michael Jackson (its all either there, or in history). Michael Jackson in theory needs to be broken out, but the problem is, that whenever there are spin-off articles, people insist on writing in excessive detail about it in the main article. I suggest 80% of what's normally in Michael Jackson (which changes day-to-day) is better placed in some sub-article (such as the ones for the individual controversies, trials, albums, individual songs, individual videos, every song he ever wrote, his former pet, his house, his associates, etc.......). Another spin-off won't fix it. --Rob 10:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. For similiar reasons Patrick gave. The Michael Jackson is too long, and it has been shortened. I think having a main article that explains Michael Jackson's music career and personal life, and then a sub-article that explains his personal life in more detail, and album pages for every album so to explain them in more detail, is a great idea. We need to keep the main article at an appropriate length, and putting in too much information about controversies will only make it longer. Over time we can improve both articles and in particular, improve the main article so there's an even amount of music career and personal life. This could work out really well if you give it a chance. Street walker 11:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. Two articles on Michael Jackson are not necessary. Just clean up the whole thing. Crunch 13:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete This only the POV taken from the main article. —This user has left wikipedia 16:13 2006-01-24
  • Delete per nom; attempt to circumvent previous consensus. OhnoitsJamieTalk 21:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and revert back the identical info on Michael Jackson. Again, his "personal life" should be dealt with on his "personal article". — TheKMantalk 02:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Crunch. --Zsinj 03:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, or merge anything new and usefull put in here. POV fork.--Sean|Black 04:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Controversy of Michael Jackson, per discussion on Michael Jackson talk page. No need to have this article when the grand scheme of things is to put music career and personal life in the main article but have it flow like a chronological biography. Street walker 06:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge content back, move to eg. Talk:Michael Jackson/history1, and delete the redirect that this creates. A history merge is not appropriate but the history still needs to be preserved - this will do it. Alphax τεχ 06:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a POV fork. Merge/move/delete per Alphax. Stifle 14:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the main article is long enough as it is. A merge would be inapprioprate --161.74.11.24 19:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per crunch. - Ø tVaughn05 talkcontribs 13:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • A blatant and unacceptable POV fork. Merge and redirect back to Michael Jackson and admins may want to consider checking if User:Patrick and User:Street walker are the same person. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • We are not the same person. I created the page to recover info that was partly deleted, partly somewhat hidden between music info, by Street walker. Thus my intention is opposite to what you seem to assume.--Patrick 11:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • LOL, we are not the same person. I suggested something in the Michael Jackson talk page about merging the personal life with the biographical details. Patrick then acted on it and split the personal life from the main article (after I had merged the personal life stuff with the music career/bio stuff). Also, people saying the personal life stuff is "hidden amongst" the music career stuff, or saying the main article is like a "glorified discography" is really frustrating me. Read the current article and you'll see there is as much (probably more by now) personal stuff as musical stuff in the biography. Alot of work has gone into structuring the main article like a biography and it annoys me that people think myself and the users who helped edit the article like a bio have some POV agenda. I personally think alot of people who edit Michael Jackson also have a POV agenda, but an anti-Jackson one, as they seem to want to remove all musical stuff from the article and just have personal life. Hello? Michael Jackson is a recording artist. There you go, my rant for the day. Street walker 12:36, 27 January 2006 (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.