Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Jackson Live in Japan (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 delete. Consensus seems to be that there are not enough/any reliable sources to establish notability NW (Talk) 19:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson Live in Japan[edit]

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

This page was previously nominated for deletion, but was closed as "no consensus". The DVD is a non-notable bootleg that fails Wikipedia's general notability guideline. The article may be listed on electronic commerce websites, but that does not make it notable within Wikipedia. There is not one single non-ecommerce reliable source that discusses this DVD. Pyrrhus16 15:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per comments on the first deletion discussion. All listed sources fail WP:RS and no qualifying sources have been located by any of the many editors that have searched. From what I can tell, the article is not about a particular DVD but about a collection of bootleg DVDs compiled at different times by different people, none of which meet WP:NALBUMS. A bootleg of a notable concert is not itself automatically notable, and this particular (series of) bootleg(s) has received no coverage whatsoever from reliable sources. If it is so popular among fans, there should be news coverage, but there isn't. I'm not saying it isn't popular, in fact I'm quite certain that it is from the amount of interest this has generated, but it can't be verified by reliable sources. This deserves at best a trivial mention in the Bad World Tour article. Ivanvector (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per comments on the first deletion discussion. As far as I can tell, nothing has changed in the last couple of months, aside from the album getting more notable- This bootleg is notable in that it's probably in the top 5 most famous bootlegs of all time. It's certainly the most eagerly anticipated album by one of the world's most notable artists. As this has already been discussed, and the deletion denied, in order to delete, you will need to add something new, or an argument that says the situation has changed. Note also that it's a concert, and not a collection. It's on 2 CDs because of the running time, that's all. It's a concert taken from a TV broadcast, and then duplicated by many different bootleg companies and individuals, as is common with any successful bootleg. Sources? What do you want, something from epicrecords.com?! There are thousands of threads on hundreds of Michael Jackson message boards. Some get deleted by board moderators because they want to conceal anything that isn't an official Sony release. This is not the case here on wikipedia, which covers things objectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.43 (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's as notable and successful as you say, then surely reliable sources exist stating this? Please provide them. Otherwise, the article exists purely off of unreliable ecommerce sites and editors' own original research, making it unsuitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Pyrrhus16 21:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"What I want" is a reliable source to verify that this is notable. To establish notability there needs to be significant in-depth coverage from an independent, published, third-party source. For example, a non-trivial independent review in a major magazine, coverage in a notable newspaper, or inclusion in a book published by a reliable third party. Fansites, message boards and online merchants simply do not fit the criteria. So far nobody here has denied that this is popular among fans, but you cannot just say it is so (that is original research) - you must be able to prove it. You must locate a reliable source that demonstrates notability. Since none have been found, this article fails WP:N and WP:V and is not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you can fix it by adding a reliable source, I will happily withdraw my objection and forward you a plate of cookies, as I'm sure will the other editors insisting this article be removed. Ivanvector (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regardless of what this is labeled (bootleg, unofficial release, etc.), and even though it involves an obviously notable person, the article must still satisfy WP:GNG. Mere proof of the product's existence is not what I consider "significant coverage", and I can not find evidence from WP:RS sufficient to meet this standard. Gongshow ^Talk 22:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd like to see some better references. Bearian (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: ^ it's because it's not a film. It's a notable concert recording (both audio and video). I do not see what is different to last time, other than somebody with bee in bonnet. Sources all over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.16.66.54 (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC) — 85.16.66.54 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

None of the sources are reliable. If it's notable, prove it; add reliable sources stating this. Pyrrhus16 11:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of this article is not verifiable by reliable third-party sources at all. Yes, there are numerous sources provided with the article, but each and every one of them points to a page related to the material (fails WP:RS) or a site that sells it (fails WP:RS) or some other source that is not reliable. Per the notability guidelines, a bootleg concert recording does not inherit the notability of the concert; the bootleg must independently satisfy WP:GNG and this clearly does not. Ivanvector (talk) 19:08, 25 November 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.