Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious beliefs of Michael Jackson

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect; I hunted high and low for sources on the article's allegations re his religion, but got zilch, so I'll only merge back the Bahrain incident. Johnleemk | Talk 13:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religious beliefs of Michael Jackson[edit]

Delete. There is no need for this article. Most of it's speculation. Instead of an article, this info needs a short sentence on the main article in a relevant section. Street walker 11:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first paragraph is fine and already more than a short sentence. The second can develop.--Patrick 14:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This little article is the result of recovering this and other content deleted by Street walker because he thought the main article was too long, and various moving around. By itself merging back would make sense, but it is silly to move in circles all the time.--Patrick 00:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 17:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Michael Jackson. Andy Saunders 17:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above.
Delete Why would a person's choice in a religion warrant a Wikipedia article? Ruby 17:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Michael Jackson, although non-notable content should be removed in the process. Where (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional keep if the creator or someone can develop this in the direction they seem to want to go. This could work as a separate article. Daniel Case 20:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Michael Jackson is notable. His religiosity is irrelevant to his fame. It may be a useful short mention in a background section of his article, but as a distinct article it is utter rubbish. --Fuhghettaboutit 20:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Michael Jackson. The man is notable, his religion is not especially and doesn't warrant its own page. -- Mithent 22:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fuhghettaboutit. Pavel Vozenilek 22:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Where are the sources? Currently, I do not see any. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Michael Jackson. It isn't very hard to find information on his religious beliefs so referencing shouldn't be hard. But I think that religious beliefs are important to be mentioned in Jackson's article since it is something that many questions are asked about. So merge anything useful. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not merit its own article. Any relevant and verifiable information on this topic should at best be merged into Michael Jackson. (Comment: Some of the "information" in the article is irrelevant to the topic.) —ERcheck @ 23:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think merging is a good choice then vote "merge". --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - To clarifiy: The information in this particular article is not sourced in the article, ie. unverified, so delete. If any worthwhile information is verified, it should be merged = "at best" merged. Vote stands as delete. —ERcheck @ 23:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay. Just trying to say here that merge also means delete. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Understood. Nothing in current article is verified, so nothing mergable. —ERcheck @ 00:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful and verified per above. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above. No need for the religious beliefs of anyone as a separate article. Logophile 01:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge useful and verified information. I'm unaware of any precedent for this sort of article (and if there are any, I'd be in line to AFD them). 23skidoo 04:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge verified and encyclopedic information. If that doesn't pass, delete. Religious beliefs of someone notable for articles or books about religion may merit a separate article, but this isn't the case here. Jonathunder 23:26, 9 February 2006 (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.