Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Jackson's religion

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 merge to Michael Jackson. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson's religion[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think there's enough content here that it not be merged into the main Michael Jackson article. To summarize: He was a JW when young but no longer (this is in the main article anyway). Some people reckon he was a Muslim; there is no evidence to support this; some people reckon he was a Christian; there is no evidence to support this; he may have adopted something more eclectic but there's no evidence to support that either. Even though all the people speculating are sourced, they're still speculation. Pseudomonas_(talk) 12:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Clearly notable and interesting, but belongs in the main article unless there is some big controversy over this. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and probably selectively merge to Michael Jackson where some of the material is already covered. I'm not convinced that this warrants a separate article but some of the reliably sourced information is relevant to the main topic and probably shouldn't be lost. Guest9999 (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't speculate. For example, it says that while he demonstrated "interest in different faiths and beliefs (including Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Kabbalah and the teachings of Deepak Chopra). There is no evidence that he adopted the one particular belief system, or joined a particular religious denomination."

Mention was made of his former faith as a Jehovah's Witness simply because this article deals with his religious beliefs and isn't a part of the main Michael Jackson article.

It is separate from the main article only because this "issue" of his beliefs has become a significant and topical source of discussion online. Putting it in the main Michael Jackson article may detract from the important things already in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robnow (talk • contribs) 02:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is precedent for separate articles of this sort (for example Charles Darwin's views on religion) for famous figures (often split off per WP:SUMMARY), and I think there might be enough detail here to justify keeping it as a separate article. That is to say more detail than you would want to cover in the main article. Most of it is well enough sourced, but I stuck one citation needed flag on part about his later interest in various religions. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It's a good article, but more people will find their way to it if it's inside the main Jackson article. Also, the discussion is not long enough that it will overwhelm or distort the Jackson article. -SpaceMoose (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main article. I know we have other subarticles such as Michael Jackson's health and appearance but I don't think there's a comparable amount of information out there to sustain a separate article on his religion, especially as he never made any public comment one way or the other about the Islam issue. It may be a topic of discussion on internet forums now but is it really notable enough in the long run?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - But do not Merge Article is good on the topic. The MJ article is too long and loads very slowly. Having sub-articles like this one is better than having to cut good material out of the main article. Jrcrin001 (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There simply aren't enough reliable sources on the subject and what is notable is already in the main bio entry. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect What is known of his beliefs is in the main boigraphy. The rest is rumour and speculation. Pyrrhus16 13:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per Pyrrhus16. Alan16 (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.