Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Jackson impersonator (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Sandstein 10:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson impersonator[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Previous AfD closed as a redirect to Impersonator; the content and sourcing now doesn't seem substantially different to its appearance then (diff, if that's helpful). Article was then recreated, but I'm not convinced it offers much in the way of evidence that the concept of a MJ impersonator is notable, in the same way that Elvis impersonator is; it's mostly just a list of "X impersonated Michael Jackson on occasion Y". Also a couple of the links are tenuous, thus reducing the amount to which their sources contribute to notability even if we ignore that it's mostly just a list:

In the film Maanthrikam, a character "dances in a 'weak imitation' of Jackson", which hardly counts as an impersonator.
Move Like Michael Jackson was a TV show finding people who could dance in his style, not impersonate him.

There are two sources present that might indicate notability:

[1], which is a New York Times article about someone called Lorena Turner photographing Jackson impersonators;
[2], which is a Daily Telegraph article about tributes being paid to him upon his death by impersonators.

Both the example of Lorena Turner (but sourced to the deprecated Daily Mail instead of the NYT) and the Telegraph article were present when the AfD was closed as "redirect" last time.

To be clear, I'm not denying that some instances of Jackson being impersonated are notable; I'm just not sure that what's here (or what can be found elsewhere) adds up to the WP:SIGCOV for an article on the concept. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 12:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 12:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 12:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 12:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 12:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I vote to keep the article. Michael Jackson is certainly one of the most impersonated celebrities. That said, yes, a lot of work is going to be required to transform and improve the article so it reaches the level of the one on Elvis Presley's impersonators. However, not all articles need to be long (just substantial enough). Israell (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are lots of reliable sources here. I also considered a merge with Michael Jackson, but that article is already way too long.Behindthekeys (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Behindthekeys, They're reliable sources, but I'm not sure they give significant coverage of Michael Jackson impersonators as a topic (rather than of the fact that X played Michael Jackson once). As it stands, the references are for an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of times someone's impersonated MJ. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 21:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Behindthekeys: Cultural impact of Michael Jackson would be a better merge target that could incorporate this easily. postdlf (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i think, this (the phenomenon itself) is notable. For example also because the article receives 25,000 views per month. I know this has nothing to do with official policies, but why delete something if a lot of people are interested? --TheImaCow (talk • contribs) 21:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because Jackson is one of the most impersonated artists of all time and since his death sources have said he’s the second most in the US, and the most impersonated around the world. The lead to this article looks as though it can be expanded and slightly improved, but the reasons to keep the article outweighs the reasons to not keep it, and that’s because there are no reasons for a deletion. Keep and improve. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 08:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see the usual empty arguments for keeping this page, such as "it's interesting to lots of people" and "there are a lot of examples of the subject". It doesn't matter how widespread a phenomenon is if it doesn't add up to a decent amount of specific coverage. This article is just an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of stuff with little encyclopaedic value and not much potential for expansion. Popcornfud (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect, I think this might be worth a couple sentences or short paragraph in Cultural impact of Michael Jackson, but I'm not seeing a basis for a standalone article (and if that changes then it can be WP:SPLIT back out). It can definitely be condensed based on what's there, particularly since many of the examples do not actually appear to be about impersonation, which (as the nom notes above) requires more than just "danced in the style of." postdlf (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This seems eminently sensible. Possibly worth deleting and recreating as a redirect if either of these options taken; after the redirect outcome of the previous AfD was carried out, it seems to have just been undone to recreate the article. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 15:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC), second sentence added 16:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. The article is sufficiently well-sourced as a phenomenon. It can be improved by learning from the Elvis impersonator article. Too large to be merged into cultural impact of Michael Jackson so stand-alone makes sense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The 2014 New York Times article is reasonably strong evidence for MJ impersonation as a concept being notable. The other cited sources are generally about individual impersonators. Those sources at least indicate that there's SIGCOV support for a list article (which is more or less how the article is currently structured). I would also not oppose a merge into Cultural impact of Michael Jackson, but it would be my second choice. Colin M (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. It obviously needs work, but WP:ARTN says that the current state of an article doesn't affect the subject's notability. There are enough sources currently cited in the article that can be used to expand. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep − There are some exceptions, like Elvis Presley or Michael Jackson (and others celebrities like Madonna, Cher or Monroe) within this topic. We can see their examples as a topic in literature, arts and others references from popular culture. Even we have some photos in Commons about this topic on MJ. Maybe, Elvis impersonators could be helpful as a reference, or y'all can check out as well Madonna impersonators [es]. My second option would be merge into Cultural impact of Michael Jackson. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lorena Turner, a teacher at Cal Poly Pomona, wrote a book called The Michael Jacksons dedicated to the topic of Jackson impersonators. That book was reviewed in the New York Times, by Slate and by KCET. All of these reviews devoted significant coverage to the topic of Jackson impersonators. The topic is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into Cultural impact of Michael Jackson. I agree with Apoxyomenus' assessment. Garlicolive (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is no reason why Elvis impersonators should have a page but Jackson should not. Both are widely impersonated all over the world castorbailey (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename to Impersonators of Michael Jackson. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2020 (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.