Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural impact of Michael Jackson (2nd nomination)

Add links
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 was no consensus. There's a reason this has been sitting open for more than a week, and hasn't been relisted. It is unlikely further discussion will bring blinding clarity. Punting. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural impact of Michael Jackson[edit]

Cultural impact of Michael Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clear WP:OR and WP:FANPAGE which is created only for competing with Cultural impact of the Beatles, Cultural impact of Elvis Presley and Cultural impact of Madonna, per the admission by the SPAs attempting to retain this article.[1][2][3][4]

Unlike Presley, Madonna there's not enough content to say about Michael Jackson since his influence can be only described as influence on individuals and there is List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson. As for this article, it was WP:POVFORKed from Michael Jackson#Legacy and influence.[5]

No improvements have been made in these many years. Looking at the article I can summarize it as follow:

There is almost nothing about "cultural impact" in the entire article.

There have been 2 conclusive discussions including an RfC on talk page and a music noticeboard, to keep this article a redirect but redirects are quickly reverted by the SPAs. Since there is nothing to see here and any essential content has been already covered at Michael Jackson#Legacy and influence I find delete to be the only option left here. Excelse (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a clear WP:POVFORK and always has been.
Although I initially felt that surely Jackson, of all people, had a major impact on culture, there are major problems:
  • the article has sources but the coverage is not sufficient for a standalone article
  • Much of the article does not even cover his cultural impact, just stuff Jackson fans want people to know. Example: Jackson's body of work reveals his attempt at fighting prejudice and injustice. The video for Black or White (1991), showed Jackson dancing with dancers of various ethnic groups and traditions, and the lyrics plead for racial tolerance and understanding.
  • most dangerously the article has been used extensively to create grossly biased coverage of Jackson (just see the Talk page for examples of that). It's bad right now but it's been much worse.
I really think the best thing to do is to wipe it. Popcornfud (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the arguments about the Beatles, Elvis and Madonna are WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and not relevant, but just looking at the article, I think it's clearly a notable subject with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ILIKEIT. Sources about the initial reaction to his death is same as the death of any other artist who is notable. That does not prove any "cultural influence". Excelse (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not ILIKEIT because I don't, particularly, and I didn't say anything about my preferences; I only talked about the sources. The titles of the articles that I referenced literally say that he "changed the music business" and "changed the world" — that is not coverage that "any other artist" gets. The sources clearly indicate that this topic is notable. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But that is how your comment read. You would want to create a Cultural impact of James Brown after reading some sources.[6][7]] Or create a Cultural impact of Chuck Berry after reading some sources.[8][9] But all of them will end up getting deleted because merely some positive views or influence does not justify a stand alone "cultural impact" article. Excelse (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're predicting what I would or wouldn't want. I'm an uninvolved editor who's looking at an article, which has more than enough sources to demonstrate notability of the topic. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm only being frank here. These past months, I have witnessed all the strenuous efforts made by certain editors to improve the article, listening to comments and concerns of other editors, their willingness to collaborate, but despite all that, some other editors would systematically dismiss any and all edits as being trivial, impertinent or repetitive when it wasn't. Besides, that "puffery" tag is still there when it is certainly not anymore justifiable.
Michael Jackson's cultural impact on the world is unarguable and very well-documented. Since its 2017 launch, the article only improved in quality and pertinence, providing information relevant to the matter at hand according to Wikipedia standards. I, therefore, vote to keep the article, and it's all I'm gonna say on the matter. Israell (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Improvements have in fact been made. The poster that nominated this for deletion could also make improvements, but have opted not to. If you see improvements to be made, make them, talk page your ideas. Don’t just nominate a page for no good reason for deletion. Modern pop culture and back pop does not exist without Jackson’s culture impact that is noted and well sourced in the known good articles attached to this Wiki article. So let’s run down the list here: 1) it’s well sourced, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. 2) It has notoriety 3) Improvements were made 4) There is no known good reason for deletion other than a flawed subjective view of the article. A view that is clearly Wikipedia:I just don't like it and nothing more. TruthGuardians (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any problem in keeping this article up, especially after seeing that there are many sources that have been also posted in this discussion by Toughpigs backing up the cultural impact Michael Jackson had. I do agree that if there are any POV issues they need to be discussed and dealt with, but that doesn't mean that the whole article has to be deleted since there's enough coverage of the topic.GiuliaZB (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know what exactly Excelse and Popcornfud would consider cultural impact but Jackson's impact on visual arts, fashion, music videos are absolutely in that category. Calling the information about artists whose work was influenced by Jackson that "irrelevant one liner" is absurd especially when that exhibition was so successful. It's the very definition of cultural impact Michael Jackson: On the Wall becomes one of EMMA’s all-time visitor successes . " Mainly about his music videos. Nothing about "cultural impact"." This argument is self-defeating. His music videos had immense cultural impact. If they had not you wouldn't have seen all those Thriller flash mobs last Halloween more than 35 years after it premiered. If this is not cultural impact what would you call it: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] I could post literally hundreds of such examples from 2019 alone. What exactly do Excelse and Popcornfud want to achieve? Not to have a page about Jackson's cultural impact at all or have one with less supposed POV? Also, @Excelse: stop calling me SPA. I'm not a sockpuppet and you don't have the right to brand other editors as such without proof.(talk) 12:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Jimcastor, SPA refers to single-purpose account, not sock puppets. See WP:SPA. Excelse is referring to editors (Jackson fans) who maintain Wikipedia accounts almost entirely to edit Michael Jackson articles. This is a major problem with Michael Jackson articles - it's why sanctions were imposed on them (see discussion), and it's what we're seeing once again in this discussion. Popcornfud (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't apply to me either the vast majority of my edits have nothing to do with Jackson and if Excelse being an Elvis Presley fan who appears to edit Jackson pages for the purposes of promotion or showcasing his favored point of view (like Jackson's impact on visual artists is "irrelevant") I don't see why it's a problem if Jackson fans who obviously know a lot more about the subject than editors who don't care about it edit Jackson related pages. I still don't see what you and Excelse would consider cultural impact if not what is detailed in the article. Isn't the fact that Thriller still had a massive impact every Halloween cultural impact, for example? castorbailey (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I assume it’s a major problem over at Elvis’s page as well? The following some time ago:
Excelse is a die hard fan of Elvis Presley (not that there is anything wrong with that) and has been blocked for using multiple accounts for POV pushing and edit warring (like they are doing on Jackson pages)on different Elvis Presley pages such as Memphis Mafia, Nick Adams (actor), and Personal relationships of Elvis Presley. The person who calling other editer singer purpose accounts has been almost 6 years now since started editing but has only made 650+ edits so far. It’s interesting to note that out of these, only 289 edits on the main space. The edit stats reveal that the user is not here for contributing to wikipedia for constructively. This why User:JG66 once asked him to contribute here for real instead of bludgeoning people with same old pointy arguments. He has been removing content in large scale without using talk pages or using proper edit summary in pages such as List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson, List of artists influenced by Janet Jackson, and Cultural impact of the Beatles.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
Here is a link that reveals his POV pushing to put Elvis over Beatles as they are trying to do with Jackson on List of best-selling music artists [16] see here is he trying to put elvis over Michael jackson on Artists with the most number-ones on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artists_with_the_most_number-ones_on_the_U.S._Billboard_Hot_100&diff=prev&oldid=791106139 , he then tried to downplay Jackson’s vitiligo, here then he took different michael jackson pages Such as Cultural impact of Michael Jackson, Super Bowl XXVII halftime show nominated for deletion, then removed Michael Jacksons name from Superstar without giving any explanation [17]. This clearly show that the nominators is a single purpose acoount and it further exposes their anti-Jackson (hate) POV pushes.
When one takes a look at Jimcaster’s edit history and various topics he’s participated in, you can see that it’s been far more than just Jackson. You prowl Jackson pages as much, in fact far more, than JimCaster does, Popcorn. One can only assume the exact same thing about your account that Excelse is accusing Jimcaster’s account of. Proof is in the pudding. Compare and contrast, and one may be left with the impression that you have a single purpose account (which I don’t think you do, by the way) Before one decides to attack and throw around false assumptions and accusations, let’s take a look at the man in the mirror. Normally where there is smoke, there are mirrors. TruthGuardians (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TruthGuardians, . One can only assume the exact same thing about your account that Excelse is accusing Jimcaster’s account of. Proof is in the pudding. LOL. I invite anyone to view my edit history and see if they think I'm a single-purpose account. Popcornfud (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That’s what I am saying here. I want to make clear that I don’t think you have a single user account. I’m just stating the obvious is all. Each of you edit various topics and pages, each of you have partaken in a number of AFDs etc. for one to accuse JimCaster of single purpose, then they must accuse you, and me too. TruthGuardians (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, there are POV problems with the article. The fix is to edit therein, not to delete a topic that--no brainer--deserves a place on wikipedia. There are reliable sources, as proven. ShelbyMarion (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Above arguments for 'keep' can be best described as WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST and WP:ITSNOTABLE. But the article is an obvious WP:POVFORK that fails to show why do we need a separate article for writing a couple of sensible sentence about the subject. Orientls (talk) 09:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand Orientls' mention of "SOURCESMAYEXIST" or this anon's "vague hand waves of sources". The sources I mentioned above are currently used in the article. The article has more than 80 footnotes; the sources are already being used. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where as not even 4 or 8 sources of those "more than 80 footnotes" seem relevant enough to the article. 173.79.47.227 (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It appears that a number of users voting to keep have reactivated their accounts from weeks of hiatus in the wake of this AfD.[18][19][20] I am also seeing double voting above.[21] In the light of this obvious off-wiki canvassing, I would like to invite @TheLongTone, Chrishonduras, Flyer22 Reborn, Snow Rise, Black Kite, and Johnpacklambert: to share their views given their participation on talk page and other similar discussions relating to this page before. 173.79.47.227 (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "double voting" was a formatting mistake — I thought the two paragraphs were by two different people, then realized an hour later that I was incorrect and reverted my edit: [22]. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There are several editors who have, in the past, opposed this article or expressed criticisms of it who have so far not voted here. I haven't pinged them for WP:CANVAS reasons. Popcornfud (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, on-wiki notification is better than off-wiki collaboration. 173.79.47.227 (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Canvasing is canvasing per WP:CANVAS regardless. For this I’m going to ping an admin to chime in if weather or not a suspicious IP is allowed to canvas in this manner. Furthermore, would this be grounds to open a sock puppetry investigation as this user only pinged anti-Jackson editors with an obvious clear agenda. So to counteract, in an attempt to balance the voting, I too will be pinging others editors who have been involved with previous AFD And RFC. @Akhiljaxxn, Maile66, *Treker, SNUGGUMS, Owynhart, Colapeninsula, MusicPatrol, A Train, and Artw:.TruthGuardians (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
173.79.47.227 is obviously a brand-new account/user posting to influence this vote. So transparent... This is definitely grounds for a sockpuppetry or canvassing investigation. Israell (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
173.79.47.227, your accusation that I was canvased and--in your words--"reactivated their accounts from weeks of hiatus in the wake of this AfD" is simply wrong. If you bothered to look at my edit patterns with an open mind (rather than searching with a confirmation bias of your suspicions)you would see that it is quite normal for me to take multiple week breaks from here. I do so because editing here is a hobby that competes with other priorities in life, juggled specifically with work deadlines that frequently take me away from here weeks on end. ShelbyMarion (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In any event, WP:CANVAS is express about the fact there is no prohibition on contacting editors who have previously participated on a given article or reasonably narrow topic. I haven't checked every name pinged above, but it looks as though everyone notified thus far (on "both sides") falls into such a category. Provided they participated on this talk page in the last year or so, or discussed the viability of this particular article as a topic in any forum on the project, there would be no canvassing concern. However--just to underscore where the line is here--a given editor simply having an interest in Michael Jackson (or having edited or shared strong opinions on him as a topic somewhere on the project) would not, in itself, justify a ping to that editor; said editor would need to have been involved on this page at some time in relatively recent memory (or else they need to have participated in a discussion somewhere on the project as to the question of whether or not this article should be deleted) in order for the ping to not violate WP:Canvas. Also, it is required that the parties pinged have been neutrally selected; in other words, the party doing the solicitation of the opinions needs to not just cherry pick those likely to agree with their view, but rather ping all of the editors who participated in a given discussion or on a given page over a given period of time. Snow let's rap 19:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The cultural impact of an individual should be covered in their biography. There is no reason to have a seperate article on the subject, period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a ridiculous claim in my opinion. Some people have impacts that span beyond what one single Wikipedia article could cover. I highly dislike the idea that Wikipedia should have blanked decisions on if "this specific type of thing should never have an article". GNG and the wastness of the reference material dictate when an article is waranted, not personal opinions from Wikipedia editors on if a subject is worthwhile.★Trekker (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
John Pack Lambert, per your statement above, there should be no cultural impact articles on Wikipedia at all! If your statement is correct, then other such articles should go, not just Michael Jackson's. Israell (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the others. JOEBRO64 16:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with Excelse and his nomination. There is not improvements and was clearly created because we have other "Cultural impacts". Almost all are coverage in his main article. --Chrishonduras (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even with problematic article text, Jackson's impact is very much a legitimate subject matter. As noted above, there are trustworthy sources discussing how he impacted culture. I doubt all of it could concisely be summed up in his main page. By no means is the page perfect with (among other things) uncited text and improperly formatted references. At the same time, AFD isn't supposed to be article cleanup, and specific details on content issues are better discussed on the talk page. I personally don't believe for a moment this page was meant for "competing" with any other. The nominator seems to have misconstrued what others were saying in linked diffs. Those were more WP:WAX/WP:OTHERCONTENT arguments (i.e. "why can't we have this when something similar exists?") as a basis for keeping rather than trying to compete. If anything, those more likely served as ideas for how to set up the article. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously, since I wrote and cited most of it. The litany of scholarly articles and research on this subject are mentioned under References.
Why do these users keep pretending they actually want to improve the article? None of them has made a single contribution to the article. Every time they talk the purpose is to smear it. If anyone bothers to look through the talk page, they've made clear and undeniable intentions to remove this article while pretending to improve it. Oh, of course, once they've deleted enough stuff and smeared it enough, they say the article "isn't good enough." Anyone with half a brain can see the cynicism here. Ask yourself, what have they added to the article that improves it? None, of course. They're also preventing other users from improving it by engaging in edit wars.
As for "competing" with the likes of Elvis Presley and Madonna, imagine being such an insecure fan that you would go on Wikipedia to smear other musicians' pages to assert dominance. This is clear WP:Advocacy. If this isn't a cynical attack in midst of a fan war, then there is no such thing as a fan war.
And above all... Get a life. Stop reading tabloids. (They're made for the semi-literate. That's why I mainly cited academia, and not newspapers.) No matter how much you'd like Michael Jackson to be less popular than he actually is or how many Wiki pages you delete, no one outside WP gives a crap about fringe and prejudiced opinions. Make my day and tell me how you think deleting this WP page will improve your life. Owynhart 20:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Owynhart has been topic banned from this subject. Orientls (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Nominators' arguments sound like WP:IDon'tLikeIt and has been repeating this rhetoric since the month after the creation of this page back in 2017. His arguments remain the same even after the page has been rewritten by other editors over the past months. So I'm also repeating that Jackson's cultural impact is enormous and is the subject of numerous books, journal papers, articles, etc. So this is a prima facie encyclopedic topic with references from reliable sources and it simply can't be covered sufficiently in a biographical article. Beyond the encyclopedic merits, there are technical guideline reasons for encouraging this fork: the prose weight Michael Jackson, which is a Featured article, is approximately 76 KB (readable prose weight). This is 26 KB heavier than the size Wikipedia's guidelines suggest is WP:TOOBIG, and should be forked.− Akhiljaxxn (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Akhiljaxxn (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
  • Delete. Disparate list of barely related facts. If we are to have an article like this, we should also consider Cultural impact of beer, Cultural impact of wheat, Cultural impact of sunbathing, Cultural impact of salt-water swimming pools, Cultural impact of Indian food in the UK. No: that is ridiculous. What's relevant and well-verified goes in the main article. Drmies (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:ASZ. There is sufficient significant independent coverage in multiple sources to indicate GNG. If an article passes WP:GNG and independent of its main subject the subject warrant a standalone article.– Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Comments provided by trolley of Jackson fans above do read like WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST, WP: Clearly notable or more specifically, "but we need more time to fix this fancruft". desmay (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's difficult to reckon how anyone can deny Jackson's cultural impact & phenomenon? He has not only influenced artists but various spectrums such as fashion etc. He did set the benchmark for many important platforms that we know today such as the Super Bowl Halftime show, it's unfathomable how anyone can deny that. Looks like anti Jackson fanatics are back to work. Here,Michael Jackson is regularly referenced to in several reality shows and movies, where I live.I agree with some who proposed for an improvement regarding the contents & sources of the article, but putting it up for deletion is a far and inane reach. Deboleena.ghy (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I edit Wikipedia on my free time and hardly get time to be here. Since,this talk page is open for constructive discussion,I think I can cast my vote when I feel it's necessary to point out the obvious.You surely cannot dictate me on this. Its been 6 years now since you've started editing but only made 650+ edits so far and out of these only made 289 edits on the main space. This just depicts on how problematic you are regarding this whole issue. Sorry to say. Deboleena.ghy (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why you are deceptively copy pasting garbage originally given to you by TruthGuardian for posting here? With 108 edits yourself, how can you brag about edit count? Or you are rid of the ability to realize that you are directly claiming that you are highly inferior in comparison? Now see this comment by Pglomba, admitting how he came here. Can we expect the obvious answer from you as well? Excelse (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Copy pasting garbage'? Sorry, what? I just stated the obvious and again, let me make it very clear that I cannot invest all my time on here and I wasn't bragging about edits. I'm still a novice when it comes to editing in Wikipedia and I'm still learning. So, I don't understand your accusation/point actually. Investing hours to persuade editors to delete a prominent page just because you happen to be a fan of another musical artist isn't on my to-do list, to be very honest. Deboleena.ghy (talk) 04:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the full list of Deboleena.ghy's contributions: [23]. I see 75+ non-Jackson-related edits. What was your accusation again? Israell (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article should be improved but MJ certainly had a big cultural impact on the world. He made Dance become Pop almost on his own.Pglomba (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Pglomba (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • Congratulations on making 1st AfD vote ever after editing for almost 1 year just for voting on this AfD. See WP:FANPAGE and read why we frown upon them. Excelse (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excelse, congratulations on ignoring IP address 173.79.47.227, a brand-new user who only appeared on Wikipedia for this vote and also to indulge in vote-canvassing. As ShelbyMarion explained above, editing Wiki is a hobby for many, not a full-time commitment! That said, if there is an important vote pertaining to any subject they have an interest in, they may vote, and you should assume WP:GOODFAITH. I've just checked, and I see that Pglomba has been a long-time Wikipedia editor and is definitely not an SPA; your accusation is unwarranted. 173.79.47.227, on the other hand, only appeared on Wiki for this vote, and that's suspicious. Where did they come from? How did they find out about this vote, eh? Israell (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is entirely false because the IP edited other AfDs and he/she was not being a fanboy but made a policy-based comment which was better than most people here joining this AfD indeed after "weeks of hiatus". We are assuming WP:GOODFAITH in an area that is now covered by community sanctions because of this ongoing meatpuppetry which has been also observed by that IP. Excelse (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is entirely true because that vote 173.79.47.227 cast regarding the 'List of postal codes in Portugal' was their first-ever Wiki post (only to avoid accusations of WP:NOTHERE) followed by a vote in this AfD page and two subsequent comments, and they haven't posted anything else ever since. "Weeks of hiatus" is an impertinent statement. No editor is obligated to constantly edit Wiki. The more you falsely accuse others, the more you reveal your own temper and motives. Israell (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And curiously enough, that brand-new user (173.79.47.227) knew the Wiki usernames of all like-minded voters... Israell (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In your world people may get accused of NOTHERE for seeking deletion of a fanpage about Jackson but not here. You were completely wrong with your false claim that this was IP's first AfD. You can speculate whatever you want, but there are many experienced dynamic IP editors here who don't use their account but know policies better than the Jackson-SPAs. Excelse (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never claimed it was 173.79.47.227's AfD! I claimed they were only on Wikipedia for this 'Cultural Impact of Michael Jackson' vote. (I clearly explain myself, and I am misquoted on purpose...) They only have four edits so far. Their very first edit is a vote regarding the 'List of postal codes in Portugal'; I've explained I suspect that vote of only having been cast to avoid an accusation of WP:NOTHERE. That vote was quickly followed by another vote and two subsequent posts here, on this AfD page, and they haven't posted anything ever since. You are the one constantly accusing all those who have an opinion different than yours of being a "fanboy", an "SPA" or whatever, and that's very disruptive. Israell (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contrary to the fact that he edited other AfD first. There is a huge difference between a person who comes here for making a policy-based comment and a person who comes here for spewing his obsession for Michael Jackson. While the first one is obviously an experienced editor, latter is just a Jackson SPA. Excelse (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let me just say that this Excelse user is making me a little hesitant to participate in my first ever AfD. Is the user’s behavior normal for this process? Is this what is allowed here? There have been obvious attempts to improve the article, which is absolutely fine as is. It’s well sourced with credible sources that meets expectation for Wikipedia:Verifiability. To suggest that Jackson is not one of the most impactful artists, if not the most impactful popular artist of all time is not dwelling in reality. The subject meets Wikipedia:Notability without question.Fancypants786 (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Congrats on first AfD vote ever. This AfD is not about discussing Jackson but the article in the question. Excelse (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fancypants786 did discuss the article! You are now wasting our time w/ bile and bitterness. They clearly explained that the article is "well sourced with credible sources that meets expectation for Wikipedia:Verifiability", that "there have been obvious attempts to improve the article, which is absolutely fine as is", and their other comments were pertinent to the matter at hand. Israell (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only part where he tries to make an argument is where he falsely alleges that people here "suggest that Jackson is not one of the most impactful artists", and that is how he is attempting to prove others wrong. No one is discussing Jackson here, but only the article which is a POVFORK. If he can focus on addressing the issues of the article then it would be much better. Excelse (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can I just jump in to remind everyone that the fact that Jackson had a major impact on culture is not in dispute? We all agree there. But comments such as It's difficult to reckon how anyone can deny Jackson's cultural impact & phenomenon? and To suggest that Jackson is not one of the most impactful artists, if not the most impactful popular artist of all time is not dwelling in reality indicate that arguments are not being read. What's under dispute is whether we need an article to cover that impact, which is a different question. Popcornfud (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I Disagree with this assesment. We can't assume that the arguments aren't being read. The article is up for deletion and that indicates that Jackson's impact to culture is being denied. If an edit or two is what is needed to rid the article of its minor issues, then make that edit. There's no need to delete an entire neccessary article.TruthGuardians (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article is up for deletion and that indicates that Jackson's impact to culture is being denied. This is exactly what I'm talking about. This is a misapprehension and does not logically follow. Saying we don't need an article about X does not mean that anyone is denying X is real. We are discussing whether X requires its own article. That's a different question. Popcornfud (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What you are saying is not far fetched. I get it. I understand it. I just disagree and do not support the point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthGuardians (talk • contribs) 18:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, but I don't think this is a point of view, I think it's a fact. Again: Nobody is saying Michael Jackson did not have an impact on popular culture. Please bear this in mind. Popcornfud (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue at hand, as I first explained here, is that TruthGuardians and others have made a genuine and strenuous effort to improve this article, showed willingness to collaborate only to face continual barrage of dismissal and reverts, which impeded improvement of the article. And once "shitty enough", it's nominated for deletion. Isn't that bright?! Just where is the puffery in the current version of the article? I'm being frank here, and the bias is beyond transparent. Instead of allowing us to improve the article some more (it is decent as it is), Excelse absolutely wants it GONE! Israell (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see many comments against users who support the delete nomination and his nominator. Maybe we need to have WP:GOODFAITH, because comments like: is "fandom war", "Get a life", "they've made clear and undeniable intentions to remove this article while pretending to improve it" and just "they" and a large etc of these comments don't help. --Chrishonduras (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See this from here.

I cant see anything in this section that is actually relevant to the topic. If no convincing argument is made, it's going down the tube.TheLongTone (talk) 5:54 am, 31 October 2019, Thursday (4 months, 24 days ago) (UTC−7)
Kill it. Popcornduff (talk) 6:00 am, 31 October 2019, Thursday (4 months, 24 days ago) (UTC−7)
& the stuff on racial identity and politics does not seem of much relevance either...TheLongTone (talk) 6:02 am, 31 October 2019, Thursday (4 months, 24 days ago) (UTC−7)
I'll let this cook a while before I get out the meat-cleaver TheLongTone (talk) 6:46 am, 31 October 2019, Thursday (4 months, 24 days ago) (UTC−7)

Tell me with a straight face these aren't trolling clowns. None of these editors make contributions to the article. They also say that this article unsalvageable and should be deleted. Might as well topic ban them if we are to make any improvements. Owynhart 19:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of these editors make contributions to the article. As a matter of fact, TheLongTone carried out extensive work on the article to bring it closer in line with Wikipedia policy, and deserves credit. Believe me, if you were to ever try to make this a Featured Article (good luck with that) you'd be glad for those edits. Popcornfud (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
↑↑↑ I really think the best thing to do is to wipe it. Popcornfud (talk) 12:34 pm, 20 March 2020, last Friday (4 days ago) (UTC−7) TheLongTone's "contributions." Your "contributions." Keep your face straighter. Your half-suppressed grin is showing. Owynhart 20:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what it is you think is incriminating about that discussion. Yes, in that discussion about that section, I believed the best thing to do was to wipe the section, and I stand by that. And I think the best thing to do is to wipe the article. Deleting things is part of Wikipedia editing - that's why we have deletion discussions for example. Popcornfud (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for admitting that you want to delete this article and not improve it. Now can we topic ban this troll, so we can actually improve it? Because you've been sitting on that Puffery tag like it's your couch. Owynhart 20:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cultural impact of Michael Jackson It appears as though you may have overlooked the wealth of Google Books on the topic of his cultural impact.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No sources on Google books? That's not grounds for deletion at all! Besides, though you may not have seen any such sources, they do exist (as evidenced by Akhiljaxxn). Here's one of those sources: "This book reflects the cultural and musical impact that not only did Michael Jackson has on the world but on the author of this book."[1] Israell (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.ca/books?id=6WhPAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA49&dq=cultural+impact+of+michael+jackson&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiUyNSyorXoAhXrmXIEHeGvB_44HhDoAQheMAY#v=onepage&q=cultural%20impact%20of%20michael%20jackson&f=false
Published by Xlibris Corporation, an unreliable WP:SELFPUBLISHED source. Given you lack experience on AfDs, I would inform you that experienced editors don't consider self published sources or irrelevant junk to be defensible when it comes discussion about the existence of a POVFORK like this. Excelse (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT. This was not an easy decision, but looking through the article and the discussion, it is clear that while this is a potentially notable subject matter, the numerous editors who have seemingly spent years doing their hardest to prevent a balanced and reasoned analysis of Michael Jackson's cultural impact mean this article is probably best being deleted to prevent disinformation from being presented on Wikipedia. Perhaps some more reasoned editors can create a better article on this at some point in the future, but currently this page is too much of a battleground to salvage. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was inadvertently pinged when one of the Keep editors pasted in text from a previous discussion about the article (when I was genuinely pinged, I guess). I've just been working on the article, adding a bit of text from pieces I can access as a subscriber to Rock's Backpages. There are plenty more articles archived there; I haven't looked at them at all thoroughly, but I imagine there'd be more details that could be useful here. As for whether this article has a place on the encyclopedia, I really can't say. In theory, I'd say yes (as I think I did elsewhere), but it's still not fully borne out on the page. For an artist or any phenomenon to merit a dedicated cultural impact article, the article should be screaming (not literally) importance, significance, and while I agree with some of the Keeps that there's been a concerted campaign to scrap the article, at the same time I'm wondering why those eager to retain it haven't followed through on, say, mentions of Jackson's huge influence on video and dance, and presented a forceful argument in the text of how deeply felt these developments were at the time, socially and culturally. The bare bones that are on the page suggest a lot of potential, but then I seem to remember making noises in support of the article, way back whenever, on the strength of its potential. It seems a fair bit of work has taken place in that regard in the year or two since, and it's better for that, but we're talking about this again and the key culture-related points still seem undeveloped. Surely, any vaguely thorough Jackson biography or history of 1980s pop covers his impact in some detail. To the ardent Keeps, I'd say (with respect): do some work – did African-American political and community leaders, sports stars, rally around Jackson at the height of his fame? did Thriller encourage record companies to sign up more black artists? did Jackson's dance moves get kids moonwalking, etc, out in city streets all over the world? I'm just guessing with those questions, and perhaps they are half-answered already. But the point is, I'm not seeing issues that do seem worthy (videos, MTV, dance crazes/revival) explored in the sort of detail one would expect when they're so key to the artist's cultural impact. JG66 (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This logical assessment is one I can get behind. Thanks for the tips and clarity put forth in this thoughtful response. TruthGuardians (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment JG66 has made good suggestions on how to improve the article. As for why editors left this article for abandon, there were apparently two trolls (who wanted to delete this article in the first place and not improve it) doing massive removals and other editors tried compromising with them. I don't agree with the idea of compromising with trolls. The purpose of editing articles is to improve and contribute to it. Deletions are meant for deletion nomination only. Owynhart 19:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding that puffery tag, I very honestly do not see how its presence is still justified. Puffery means "exaggerated praise", and there is none. This is a pertinent, quality article, and deletion is not the answer. Let us keep working on improving it. That said, it is decent as it is. Israell (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, and it confused me when making some additions to the article just recently. There might be some statements that need reworking (which means it's no different from most articles on Wikipedia, even FAs), but no way is the top-of-page banner warranted. JG66 (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the topic has dozens and dozens of online and print sources that gives it Wikipedia:Notability. If the Delete crowd believes that the content of the article should be edited, then do so. Deleting the article will only lead to it’s recreation down the road. Also, what’s with the Puffery tag? It seems out of place and exaggerated. If needed at all, for 1-2 lines that can be deleted or edited.Factlibrary1 (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Factlibrary1 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. With only 16 edits, Factlibrary1 is editing after more than 3 months in order to !vote here just like another user who admits off-wiki coordination over this AfD.[24][reply]
  • To the closing admins, as a side note. I'm seeing mentions of racial bias on this topic (Michael Jackson), so I will say this. I am an admin on the Malayalam Wikipedia. A few weeks ago during a Conference, I had a chat with a bureaucrat from the English Wikipedia, and during the talk, we discussed systematic bias on Wikipedia and the Michael Jackson pages. A few more editors joined this discussion, and I showed them the discussion regarding the subject on the article’s talk page, related AFD, and admin noticeboard. They recognize some editors on this topic and are suspicious that this could be a place of systematic and racial bias editing on Wikipedia. I do hope that the admins (involved and uninvolved) will treat this subject seriously.– Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As can your actions. JG66 (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's in pretty poor taste to claim someone is pulling a "race card" when someone is trying to bring attention to biases on Wikipedia. Racial and gender bias are absolutely something which are worth keeping in mind?★Trekker (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all of the following reasons: Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:How to delete a page, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, and this was an easy decision. The latter gives clear guidelines that most delete votes are in violation of. It say, “Bear the following things in mind: It is better to improve an article than to delete it for not being good enough.” That is 100% the case with this article. Look at the history of the talk page. Clear attempts to improve the article has been made. The article has very, very minor issues. After reviewing the responses here, I suspect that comments like ...the numerous editors who have seemingly spent years doing their hardest to prevent a balanced and reasoned analysis of Michael Jackson's cultural impact mean this article is probably best being deleted to prevent disinformation... and like delete per the others. and Delete Agree with Excelse and his nomination.. are in clear violation of Wikipedia:Avoid repeated arguments and Wikipedia:Arguments to make in deletion discussions. Timericon (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Timericon (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. With 96 edits, Timericon is editing after more than 1 month in order to !vote here just like another user who admits off-wiki coordination over this AfD.[25][reply]
  • Keep. I was still undecided when I made my comments above. I've done a fair bit of work on the article over the last day or more – adding details from The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll, Bob Stanley's Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!: The Story of Pop Music from Bill Haley to Beyoncé, and a chapter in the Ashgate publication Performance and Popular Music: History, Place and Time written by Jaap Kooijman, associate professor in Media Studies and American Studies at the University of Amsterdam. I've also added text from Andy Gill's Jackson obituary in The Independent and a piece by Barney Hoskyns for UK Vogue, written at the height of Jackson's fame. I'm not pretending it's all fabulous stuff but I think it does support the need for this article and goes a decent way to solving the problems listed by Popcornfud. These were problems I partly agreed with, just as I could see Snuggums' view also (hence my fence sitting at the time). My interest is 1960s music so I haven't even looked in books dedicated to '80s pop culture – I wouldn't know where to start. As I think I said above, I wish some of this article's contributors would dig out such sources, because it's difficult to imagine they wouldn't benefit the article immensely and put it way beyond the ongoing scrutiny. Having worked for years here on the sociocultural impact of the Beatles and other '60s acts, it's a no-brainer to me: Michael Jackson, article on his cultural impact? Well, of course ... JG66 (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I read the article twice and I found it to be nothing more than a poorly written synthesis. Starting with the very first sentence of the article, two sources cited for the very first paragraph of the article, "is regarded as one of the most significant cultural figures of the 20th century and one of the most successful and influential entertainers", are far from satisfactory. First source[26] has been misrepresented, second one[27] is a self published source citing an exhibition curator. Rest of the article is apparently worse and suffers from same misinterpretation and shoddy sources. Azuredivay (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Numerous actions were taken and have just been taken to improve the article. The decent article is decent as it is, and total deletion is not justifiable. Israell (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Azuredivay: You say, "Rest of the article is apparently worse and suffers from same misinterpretation and shoddy sources." With regard to "apparently", have you actually read it? The text I've been adding certainly doesn't misrepresent the sources; I've been checking previous sources where I can – and rewording, cutting or adding cite-needed tag, as necessary. If something is supported by a poor source, or under closer examination perhaps not supported at all, could well be that an alternative is easy to find – I've seen many of the same statements appearing in the books and magazine articles I've brought to the page just recently, but haven't bothered to apply an alt source (unless I've seen that there's problem). Of course there's room for improvement (is there one page on Wikipedia where that isn't the case?), yet this isn't a Peer or Featured Article review. But the Taylor & Francis journal Popular Music & Society, Rolling Stone and the Rolling Stone Press book The New Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll, The New York Times, The Guardian, The Washington Post, Vogue, The Independent, Billboard, The Atlantic, texts published by academic publishing houses such as Edinburgh University Press, University of Michigan Press and Ashgate Publishing, a Jackson biography written by pop culture critic and scholar Joseph Vogel, the Guardian/NME/Times [etc] music critic Bob Stanley's pop history Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!: The Story of Pop Music from Bill Haley to Beyoncé ... are you seriously saying they're "shoddy sources"? JG66 (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant WP:POVFORK. Saw about this on AN/I, and the rationale for deletion outweighs the rationale for keep. Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 17:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Decently sourced article on notable topic. Dimadick (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I tend to agree that most of the time this sort of separate article isn't merited, but there's an awful lot that could be said that would make the main article huge. So while I think more most topics it would be a merge, for the absolute most prominent fraction of a percent of entertainment, a stand-alone article is justified. I wouldn't !vote to keep all of the "cultural impact of..." articles, but this one seems reasonable. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – as other editors have said, there's plenty of info here for Jackson to have his own page like this, especially since editors including User:JG66 has decided to help expanding. There's no doubt Jackson has had a massive impact on pop culture, since Madonna "Queen of Pop" could have one, why can't the "King of Pop"? – zmbro (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can speak only for myself, but I think that if I had been summoned to any of the "Cultural impact of X" articles, I probably would have felt the article's justification was dubious and that, if allowed at all, it would need to meet certain particularly high standards with regard to tone, consistency with policy, and fidelity with the main and related articles. Snow let's rap 17:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oscillating, per WP:POVFORK and WP:NOPAGE rationales - It's a close call, and in any event, I think this one is destined for a 'no consensus' closure and the maintenance for the time being of the status quo. Nevertheless, I think it worth sharing what I think are the main policy issues/points of community conesnsus which most directly bear on this case. I was randomly bot-summoned to a previous RfC on the subject and subsequently pinged back to later iterations of the discussion--and my view has evolved a little over the course of those discussions.
To begin with, there's the fact that this article really couldn't be more of a blatant WP:POVFORK of Michael Jackson, covering the lion's share of the same topics and events with an extemely broad brush and a vague title that invites in virtually all that there is to discuss about the man as an encyclopedic topic. In this light, it is pretty anemic before the WP:NOPAGE test. However, there has been an argument advanced by some (which I think has some merit) that) that supports an WP:IAR/pragamtic exception to those rather fundamental policies--presumably, similar arguments have always been made for the "Cultural impact of Pop Musician X" articles, on the grounds that "there's just so much to say". I'm somewhat skeptical of that argument, because the vast majority of our articles on the world's most influential historical figures, classical artists, great philosophers, scientific luminaries, and yes, lauded modern entertainers, manage to capture the encyclopedic subtopics of a given subject in a network of related articles that does not include a parallel pov fork article. Nevertheless, I would not say there is an a priori assumption that a junior main article approach couldn't be adopted in some cases.
So might such an argument be used here to bootstrap and justify this article? Unfortunately, even having isolated the issues as I see them down to this level of granularity, I'm honestly not sure enough to stake out a position. I think we can start by recognizing that, for any case where we could make such an exception (where said exceptions open up the door for diverging coverage of the larger majority of core topics regarding the main article's subject matter--here, Michael Jackson) surely there must first be a met burden of exceptional quality and synergy with the main article, so as to not create competing narratives rather than resolving issues about the main discussion of the main and his legacy under one unified consensus. In fact, avoiding this situation is expressly outlined in WP:POVFORK as the main purpose of the policy. Ideally the article should be carefully crafted in draft space with an excess of care to make sure these two huge articles covering many common topics with similar scope, are not working at cross purposes (plus any additional concerns about tone, neutrality, and weight), and such concerns should be resolved before the article is moved into mainsapce. If that isn't done, then the article, being a POVFORK that isn't even beginning to pull it's weight for justifying an exception to the normal editorial/policy approach, should only be granted a finite amount of time to get to exceptional quality.
In the present instance, this article started out in a truly rough state, and if I can be blunt without intending to insult any good faith efforts from authors involved at that point, it was blatantly hagiographic, with massive issues regarding encyclopedic tone. It's been a while since I contributed to the last thread, and the difference between the article's content at that time and what I am reading now is truly a night and day situation. It's much more appropriately worded and makes much better use of attribution to contextualize praise for Jackson, rather than trying to say it in Wikipedia's voice. Had I been pinged to an AfD at that time, I think I almsot certainly would have endorsed a deletion, even if with most of the same caveats discussed above. Now the quality is at a level where I think we can address the central question of whether any major parallel article under such a title should be used under any circumstances. But in any event, good work on the part of the editors who have tightened the article up. Snow let's rap 17:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I believe Drmies is right. The article suffers from a severe level of OR. Some facts, with zero link to "cultural impact", are gathered in a professional manner to indicate a synthetic notability. Michael Jackson#Legacy and influence is already containing what I think can be deemed as showing his influence or lack thereof. For notability we need sources deeply dealing with the subject. --Mhhossein talk 12:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein, your post surprises me – although I'm not dismissing it at all. I'm including Snow Rise in my reply because that was a thoughtful post above, imo, with some interesting points.
Having worked on music articles for years here, there is a degree of synthesis in every single article (especially "Cultural impacts of"s – "CI"s from now on – or similar spin-off articles). I don't think that can be denied. WP:ALBUMSTYLE#Background says that one shouldn't assume that readers are au fait with the artist's background and we should seek to inform readers rather than think they're knowledgeable about the artist's standing. In album or artist articles, an editor digging through, say, music critic Robert Christgau's extensive online archive and finding a reference to the album/artist is similarly indulging in a degree of original research or synthesis, in so far as the Xgau piece could contain a mere passing reference (but a juicy quote) about the album/artist but it's not dedicated to the topic. Christgau is a well-known music critic and I'd be surprised if what he had to say about an album, however indirectly, would be considered at all problematic. A similar WP editorial approach informs content at biographical articles: content comes from, and is therefore synthesised from, sources that are way outside of those dedicated to the artist in question. Personally, I thinks this adds strength to the article because one gets a picture outside of potentially hagiographic biographers and, alternatively, writers out to denigrate their subject. In other words, one gets a good representation of how the majority of third-party sources view a subject. I don't think that's at all outside Wikipedia's policies, but at the same time, yes, it is dependent on some sort of editorial intervention.
So, further to SnowRise's comments in part, these CI articles are spin-offs and – yes I can't disagree – their content is determined by editorial intervention, but not OR (imo). That is, it often requires us to select content because the subject might not be covered in its precise description in enough sources, although no end of sources cover the subject in some way. If this is a problem, there should be no Cultural impact of Elvis Presley (which I've just noticed is tagged for some sort of problem). Why, because the sources don't appear to be dedicated to the CI of EP at all. As in this article, they're a collection of sources that mention the artist's cultural legacy or are dedicated to a certain aspect of the artist's career that authors say impacted on culture. It's similar, though way less so, I suggest, at Cultural impact of the Beatles. That article is based on several sources dedicated to the Beatles' cultural impact, but in the main also from sources that discuss the era or explore the cultural aspects that the Beatles are said to have impacted upon. The latter type of sources offer a substantial amount about "our" subject, even if their purview is way outside CI of the Beatles; but they are authoritative about their respective cultural topics, which adds credibility to the CI article because we're not just parroting what a cultural biography of the artist might say (and whose motivations and impartiality might be questionable) – we're showing that books dedicated to that cultural aspect similarly recognise the artist's significance. The CI of Michael Jackson does the same. Or at least that's the approach I've adopted. (How else do we know that an assertion stands up against a wider range of third-party sources?)
It is that question of, per SnowRise, a subject's cultural influence being too large to contain in their biographical article. The idea that Jackson's CI can be and is covered sufficiently in Michael Jackson#Legacy and influence is not what I've found from researching the subject. As an article writer here, I admit that I come to the CI of MJ thinking, Is there an article in it? In so far as Presley, Beatles and Madonna are afford CI articles, the answer's yes. With the charges of WP:POVFORK – and me not being at all knowledgeable about the range of MJ content across the encyclopedia – I've looked at Michael Jackson#Legacy and influence and it seems to me that doesn't begin to cover it. his cultural impact in the detail that a large number of third party sources afford the subject. [Changes made here on late 29 March in realisation at how, foolishly, I'd read FORK as WP:SPINOFF, and disregarded the POV element in the link; as explained below, I think the article is devoid of any POV issues.]] What I'm saying is, I'm waving a flag for keeping and continuing to improve the article, because the artist's cultural impact was enormous, and a wide search of dedicated and indirectly focused sources supports that. But if the current content is deemed OR and Synth, then so is every CI article, certainly those related to pop culture or artistic pursuits. I'd argue that the Beatles CI is the only exception, for the very reason that's a major part of their impact and legacy: their career is recognised as having inspired the formation of serious study into pop music and pop culture, they have by far the most literature dedicated to them out of any pop act, and there are books dedicated to their cultural impact.
Within WP The Beatles, I've been stretched very thin trying to work on, expand, and find a clear identity for not just the CI article, but Beatlemania and the articles on their individual (Beatlemania-ridden) tours and other aspects of their immense popularity and influence. In the case of the Beach Boys, there was a CI article for a while, now incorporated into the band article; their main creator, Brian Wilson, is afforded significant coverage as are issues relating to the Beach Boys' artistic direction: Musicianship of Brian Wilson, Brian Wilson is a genius, Don't fuck with the formula, Collapse of Smile (the latter in addition to Smile (Beach Boys album)). That level of WP coverage has been contested (I've been quite vocal as have others) for the way the identity of those articles is dependent on – in the terms we're using now – synthesising content from sources that aren't dedicated to the subject: they're pooling relevant sources as determined by a Wikipedia writer, in other words. I'm not saying go look there instead, just as I'm not saying tear down Beatlemania or CI of the Beatles – WP:Other stuff exists. But that same approach by Wikipedia editors is relevant to complaints here that CI of MJ is a synthesis of points as OR-ed by its contributors. I agree in a way – CI of MJ probably is just that – but I think it's put together from worthy sources. And it would seem all the current CI articles and possibly a whole lot more need to go if that approach means a page doesn't belong on Wikipedia. JG66 (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But still one should completely avoid basing their thoughts by contradicting WP:OSE. 'Keep' comments have failed to address the issues with WP:POVFORK, WP:NOR and also WP:MEAT, WP:BATTLE. The content of the whole article fails to demonstrate any value for encyclopedia given the violation of WP:FANCRUFT and WP:NOR. The battleground mentality we see here certainly show that the page is likely to remain a POVFORK forever and as such this article would be better off deleted as again, the main article already covers this subject with a better quality. This is yet another WP:POVFORK which was created mainly because it could never find a place on the main article. This is why POVFORKs should be avoided. WP:ASSERTN-type comments are far from analyzing the actual issues with this article.  Azuredivay (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Azuredivay: As above with your blanket statement about the quality of the sources, I don't find your argument holds up to scrutiny. You're now citing several policies, vaguely, with no meat on the bones. WP:FANCRUFT has nothing to do with the article content as it currently stands. (Having said that, I've barely touched the article's section on Global impact; feel free to tag any potential issues there.)
As for the links you provide, I'd say, as for all "Cultural impact" articles and a whole lot more: WP:SPINOFF. This CI article qualifies as an example of the second option offered there, namely a meta-article:
Sometimes, when an article gets too long (see Wikipedia:Article size), an unduly large section of the article is made into its own highly detailed subarticle, and the handling of that subject in the main article is condensed into a brief summary section. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure. The new subarticle is sometimes called a "spinoff" from the main article ("spinout" leads elsewhere); Wikipedia:Summary style explains the technique.
Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a forbidden POV fork. However, the moved material must leave a WP:NPOV summary section of that material behind. If it doesn't, then the "spinning off" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others and ignore one viewpoint.
This article does not present any violation of that last point. It is expanding on points made at Michael Jackson#Legacy and influence, rather than offering a narrative that's at odds with the latter's.
WP:SPINOFF goes on to say:
Summary style meta-articles, with subarticles giving greater detail, are not POV forking, provided that all the subarticles, and the summary sections, conform to WP:NPOV. Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject in different articles, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter ... However, it is possible for article spinoffs to become POV forks. If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article [[XYZ]], then it is also inadmissible at a spinoff [[Criticism of XYZ]]. Spinoffs are intended to improve readability and navigation, not to evade Wikipedia's content policies.
There's no problem there either. With regard to NPOV, I'd say this article more than conforms. There's a long section on his impact on Tabloid media that hardly presents the subject in too glorious a light yet does include some commentary that seeks to locate his controversial public image in a non-sensationalist light and recognise it as a reflection of Michael Jackson's influence and reach at the time. I've also added mention, under Race politics, that not all listeners were impressed with Jackson's move into what was perceived as a "white" domain, with Thriller. The final point above, about how a statement that's "inadmissible for content policy reasons" at the main article is similarly inadmissible at any spinoff, is not relevant here. JG66 (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm puzzled, I'm categorically flummoxed in fact, by a lot of what's occurred in this article's on/off/on again journey. I say this from having viewed the article history, edit by edit in some cases, and from skimming over previous discussions. Supporters of the article have been dismissively branded as "fans", yet I've seen signs of those same fan/editors working to remove examples of puffery in previous months. Those wanting to see the article gone have variously appealed for GOODFAITH towards the nominator and badgered the keeps with blue links to policies in an intimidatory fashion. I'm not a "fan" – although, as ever, I find that engaging with a subject elicits a great deal of untapped appreciation – and I'm not a wikilawyer. With regard to the latter, I can't believe that WP:SPINOFF hasn't come up in this discussion. I'm not dismissing the POV concerns that might have originated from the article in an earlier guise, nor from any discourse over the last couple of years – but no one here has raised the idea of WP:SPINOFF. In my stupidity (finally I can use that word, because I'm talking about myself!), I mistook any mention above of FORK as SPINOFF. Yes indeed. But I can't help wondering why none of the delete editors, who appear to have such a grasp of Wikipedia's policies and the moral high ground, have cited SPINOFF. It speaks of a will to win the argument, rather than ensuring the community decides based on a fair representation of policies. Honestly, the lawyers here have been on one side of the room. Wikilawyering is not condoned.

The nominator of this AfD, Excelse, has done pretty much nothing on Wikipedia since January 2019, aside from attending to this and any other issues relating to an alleged bias towards Michael Jackson. Which would be fine if they didn't get so in the face of any editor who reappears when the CI article is subject to a second AfD. They had AllMusic declared unreliable by a posse at RSN, thereby ensuring that The Beatles couldn't state that the Beatles were the most influential act in pop music. I'm not bothered, I know other sources are out there, but the Elvis Presley bias that others have mentioned comes to mind, as it did then. AllMusic is a source that's long been identified as reliable, btw; it appears in no end of GAs and FAs.

I know I'm adding to the dysfunction here. But what do you do when it's so uncomfortably apparent that the issue's been biased in favour of the deletionists? The article carried a puffery tag long after such concerns were relevant; requests were put to the editor in question, who seemed to be rendered mute by the stress of it all. Together with the one-sided wikilawyering, it's as if the article was doubly guilty – deletable until proved keepable. So, in short: WP:SPINOFF, and I'm as frustrated with myself as I am with everything else here that I didn't come across that sooner. JG66 (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPINOFF applies only on sensible content forks which are carried out after consensus. You cannot justify a blatant POVFORK which has been recreated every time against consensus. You are kidding when you are telling us that the content of this article, which is of garbage quality, needs to be parked in the main article of Michael Jackson which is rather small having only 76k bytes. That will never happen. AllMusic is popularly noted for being an unreliable source.[28] You should review WP:BLUDGEON and find something better to do than wikilawyer this POVFORK. desmay (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything there that states a spinoff article can only be created after consensus. This article appears to have been laden with puffery and in need of a neutral tone, especially with regard to statements made in Wikipedia's voice; these are no longer issues. The discussion you linked to regarding AllMusic, from 2009, does not identify it as an unreliable source at all. It's one editor saying they don't like it and misunderstanding/misrepresenting the consensus from an earlier discussion; all the other editors there point out that AllMusic, like any source, has its flaws. Hardly "popularly noted". JG66 (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Last time I was here I decided not to take a stance on this specific page, but I have now looked over the article and searched for further coverage online and I have come to the conclusion that I belive this is not only a worthy extension of information which could not fit on Jacksons' main article due to size but also a subject notable in its own right! I feel like this article is in need of major extension and could easily be a featured article in the future with some effort. There is much that has been writen about the legacy and impact left behind of Jackson due to his imenase influence and the controversies which have left a major mark not only on his own legacy but the culture in egeneral.★Trekker (talk) 07:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which biases exactly and what fancruft exactly? People keep claiming that these issues exist but no one is really bringing up concrete examples in my opinion. I see no more bias or "fancruft" here than Cultural impact of Madonna or Cultural impact of the Beatles. Only difference between this article and those is that this one is shorter, which isn't suprising considering it hasn't been around as long.★Trekker (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's becoming a bit like some editors don't like the idea of there being an article about Michael Jackson's cultural impact, but for a while I've wondered if they're actually reading the article. (Having said that, I appreciate there are editors – and I was one originally – who might lean towards Keep because they do like the idea, at least they feel that MJ's influence was such that it merits a CI article.)
With the above in mind and with the daily expansion of the article, I've been tempted to ping a few of the Deleters from earlier in the AfD, because the October puffery tag and (pretty poor and unrepresentative) lead section hardly combined to create a good first impression of the article. 1292simon: I've just expanded the lead to better reflect content after many additions over the last few days. This article's scope is not covered in any great detail at Michael Jackson#Legacy and influence – much of it's not there at all. Your contribs show you weighed in briefly at several AfDs, back to back. Would you mind looking at this article's new lead? It's no great work of art, but it now provides a way more accurate overview of the article's content. Do you still think this article is just POVFORK, bias and fancruft, that the points mentioned don't allow for an article dedicated to Jackson's cultural impact? Thanks, JG66 (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JG66. Thanks for your improvements to the lead section. I think the first few paragraphs (up until "success at this time was credited with rescuing the music industry out its late-1970s recession") are now well balanced and thoroughly sourced. My vote is still to remove this article (vote changed from Delete to Redirect above) however, as I believe that useful content such as this could easily be into Michael Jackson#Legacy and influence. Thank you for your respectful discussion. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)
1292simon: thanks for revisiting. Just to confirm, you know that no sources are necessary in the lead, as long as the content is sourced in the main body (which it is)? With the lead as it currently stands, it's actually the inclusion of references up to the point you identify that needs some attention (ie, they're only required when they support potentially contentious statements – MOS:LEADCITE); although, given the article's here at AfD, I acknowledge that the potentially-contentious factor is somewhat heightened. Apologies for coming back at you a second time. It's just that your comment about the lead's opening paras being "well balanced and thoroughly sourced" got me wondering. JG66 (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, while I certainly agree that the article has come a long way towards more encyclopedic tone recently, Simon's point is not moot, but in fact tracks preciesely with WP:POVFORK: regardless of whether a given forked article is neutrally written at a given point in time, it remains a situation that may be untenable in terms of allowing two main articles with two competing consensus processes potentially reaching very different perspectives on a wide variety of subtopics while presenting a substantial overview of the shared subject (here, Jackson). The problem is that this article's title/subject matter is so broad that it pulls in just about every single topic that might also be discussed at Michael Jackson, which is precisely the situation the policy is meant to prohibit. So Simon's objection is a reasonable one, regardless of how the article currently reads (and I agree that great strides have been made to improve this article's content--I'm just not sure if that is sufficient reason to allow the article to continue). The fact of the matter is, pretty much every subsection title of this article is a topic that is discussed to some significant extent in the parent article, with the partial exception of the "Global impact" section, which is frankly the currently most problematic part of this article, being little more than a losely related collection of WP:TRIVA without much context or cohesion.
As I said myself above, the real question at this point is whether (when we remove redundant information) this article just has so much extra information in it (information which is vital to an ecncylopedic understanding of the man) that an exception should be made with regard to POVFORK. But it's important that we understand that distinction and recognize that we would be making an WP:IAR call on the matter, because I don't think there's really a legitimate argument to be made that this is not a POVFORK, nor that it will not generate a certain amount of divergent consensus (and probably a fair bit of bias and francruft from time to time, as Simon suggests). The questions we have have to answer then are: 1) even with these concerns, does the benefit (extra context regarding the man's work and legacy) outweigh the issues (extra work in maitenance and fighting the kind of hagiography that intiially defined this article), and 2) can those issues realsitically be kept under control with this kind of forked/two main articles structure? Those are two very complciated questions in their own right, but to reach them we must first move past the question of whether this article as it stands is consistent with our typical POVFORK/NOPAGE procedures. It really isn't, but I don't think that necesarily has to be the end of the inquiry. Snow let's rap 02:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JG66. Yes, I appreciate that there is no requirement for the lead to include references, as long as they are provided in the body. I merely mentioned it as a compliment because it makes it easier than cross-checking each statement in the body of the article. Regardless, my opinion on the AfD remains based on the POVFORK issues explained above by Snow (much more eloquantly than I could!) above. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)
  • Keep Seems to be more than enough material and sources to justify an article. Seems appropriate for the Michael Jackson article to summarize this material in the Legacy & Influence section, but provide a link to a full article with more detailed discussion. --Spasemunki (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Drmies' analysis is persuasive, and the article suffers from insurmountable WP:OR/WP:SYNTH issues. The "legacy and influence" section of the main biographical article is sufficient to show his notability without running afoul of the OR/SYNTH/CRUFT issues. I would be fine with a redirect as well. Neutralitytalk 15:19, 2 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cultural_impact_of_Michael_Jackson_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1166485272"