Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Michael Jackson Company
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 delete. Wizardman 01:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Michael Jackson Company[edit]
- The Michael Jackson Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
DELETE: Not notable, he has been involved in much bigger business ventures. At the moment nothing important has really occurred that would justify the need for an article. — Realist2 16:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge content into Michael Jackson article While Michael Jackson is probably one of the most influential people in musical in the last 50 years, this seems to be something that he's just starting to do. Merge it into the article about him, and
whenif it grows and becomes notable, lets do its own article. --Seascic T/C 17:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Merge to a new section in the main Michael Jackson article. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 03:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 03:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not Notable- no news article exists about this company and this company is not registered. Raymone Bain is also no longer in Michael Jackson's employment and therefore cannot be the president of such a company. Also, Michael Jackson is clearly using MJJProductions as his main company, with proof of this on all of the new Thriller 25 albums, singles and merchandise. MJJProductions is still operational; The Michael Jackson company is not.Marnifrances (talk) 06:09, 15 August 2008 (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.