Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reaction to the death 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 was WP:Snowball delete. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction to the death of Michael Jackson

Unnecessary fork to Michael Jackson. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article due to the high number of significant figures who are commenting upon the story, the internet reaction that cannot be summarised in a short section in Michael Jackson's article. This is gaining coverage in reputable sources. Things such as the Jackson, Michael, MJ etc. being the most popular tags on Twitter need to be expanded. World leaders are commenting upon his death, and I feel it is necessary to stop the main article becoming too long. I want people to start adding information and we can create a useful page. 03 md 14:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. WP:IAR. A valid article is inevitable, any Afd will be a distracting and possibly disruptive side show. MickMacNee (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not inevitable at all. Death of Michael Jackson has been deleted and salted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it hasn't. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck then. Don't say I didn't predict what is about to come over the next 7 days. MickMacNee (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't be a snow keep, there's already loads saying delete! Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I warned them they were wasting their time. MickMacNee (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.161.173 (talk • contribs)
Delete Besides the fact that there is no limit on what could be in (a celeb saying just "It's a sad day" could technically go in), there is no need for separate article just about his death. Yes a lot of people will miss this talent (but very weird and deeply-troubled) person, but this seems like cruft to me. I think it would also be a slippery road since you get a lot of reaction anytime someone famous dies. TJ Spyke 14:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Un-necessary fork that can be covered entirely in his own article. Article also runs afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't need its own article. Does need a few weeks of sober second thought before deciding what belongs in the main article in this regard. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whilst I'm aware that other stuff exists isn't a reason to keep an article in itself, there is an article on the death and aftermath or Ronald Reagan, and it seems likely that even at this early stage there will be more than enough to make a fairly in depth article Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete significant figures is WP:POV (or WP:OR?). Can be adequately covered in the main article. Davidelit (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Reactions are already being removed from the main article, for non-policy reasons [1]. This is ultimately what will mean this article gets created, because some editors are more clued up than others, and they already know through experience that NOT#NEWS is fundementally flawed for dealing with high profile events, where 'mentioned in multiple reliable sources' trumps all. (Clue:Notability applies to topics, it does not limit specific article content). Removing the {Main} link to this article from the main page will delay it, but it won't stop it. MickMacNee (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:POV fork. Tavix | Talk 16:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV, WP:OR, WP:V, etc.... - 2 ... says you, says me 16:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not inevitable. There is no similar article for Elvis. John Lennon and JFK have article on their death because they were both assasinated/shot. Polargeo (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I miss Mike too, but I still have to say delete per nom. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The US Congress held a silence for MJ. The BBC are currently holding a half hour BBC One Special. Presidents, Prime Ministers and various from the great and good are all releasing statements. 50 million views for Thriller on Youtube. None of this is making it into the main article, probably due to totally wrong interpretations of notability/article size. You guys have seriously screwed up shot-gunning this article, in favour of that rather pathetic death section, which, instead of mentioning any of these things, is currently wittering on about Amazon and iTunes sales figures, and how the event affected Wikipedia. Wikipedia screwed up in reporting his death (admins falling over themselves to protect and unprotect, I couldn't even add that he was no longer in the hospital, despite a billion people already being fully aware of the fact). Wikipedia screwed up his biography (try reading the article as a newcomer and for example quickly determining his children's years of birth without reading through 5,000 words of unfocused meandering bullshit). The one thing Wikipedia has at least been good at recently, compiling focused and compact articles of record such as this (its an absolute joke to call this a news article), it is royally screwing up as well. Wikipedia is definitely jumping the shark as both an information source and a site of record. MickMacNee (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems a fork since Death of Michael Jackson has been salted and protected. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 20:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. MJ's death was notable and encyclopedic. That people are reacting to it is not. - Brian Kendig (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, what you are basically saying is that the reaction to MJs death has not been the subject of coverage by multiple third party sources? Amazing. Unbelievable even. I think I have honestly stepped into an Afd timewarp, where all the normal arguments are turned upside down. MickMacNee (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The death of Michael Jackson is notable. The reaction to the death of Michael Jackson - the subject of the article in question - is not notable. It makes sense to report on the event, not on the people reacting to the event, unless they react in some notable way. - Brian Kendig (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as long as the Death article is salted. It's one fork too far, unfortunately. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected. As this shotgun Afd has succesfully made this article a stillbirth, and nobody is apparently now willing to work on it, given its current poor state (a lede and empty sections), I'm redirecting it to Michael Jackson#Death until such time as people either come to their senses, and realise from the talk pages and from the old media, that wikipedia is currently way behind the curve here, or it gets deleted. If it is deleted, it would be helpful if the closing admin userfies the article history to a link to the main article talk page (choose any number of the current threads requesting a fork of the expanding reaction material), because I don't think anyone else is that bothered in making sure the information already added isn't lost. MickMacNee (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I believe that is probably the right outcome in the end, this discussion is still ongoing (indeed it has only been open for a few hours) so I've reverted your edit as premature. I suggest letting the discussion run, at least for a few days, and then taking the appropriate action when the discussion is closed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is currently crap, orphaned, is not being added to, and now it gets to sit there for all on Google to see for the next 5 days or more as a shining example of Wikipedia not being able to collect and present timely information that the rest of the world is seeing 24/7. Seriously, if this topic cannot be created into an article on Wikipedia, we might as well make it policy that there can exist no Reaction to ... articles at all where there is a parent article, because you aren't going to get more reliable sources than for reactions to this. Except maybe Reactions to World War III. But then its pretty much moot. MickMacNee (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect would have been possible before the Afd, but not during it. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a ridiculous example of WP:NOTNEWS. If a few years later, this topic seems notable in and of itself then maybe, maybe I could consider a split/fork...but as it is this page is absurd and a crazy waste of effort. Cazort (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, per your reasoning, we have to wait two years, then wait for someone famous to die, and then wait to see if a source mentions any part of this reaction in comparison to that one, and then we can write this article? You honestly cannot conceive of the reactions being historically notable from watching the global coverage right now? This coverage all seems normal does it? The death section is already longer than the section on the last year of his life, and that's after a day, with a massive amount of material missing. MickMacNee (talk) 23:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section will be trimmed back, forking it out solves nothing. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trimmed back? Which 'newsy' part are you going to trim exactly? The minutes silence in Congress? The condolences from Barack Obama etc. The crashing of Google? MickMacNee (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my God; will you calm down? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait until the media hype has died down before considering making forks. I suggest 1-2 weeks at the minimum. Majorly talk 23:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we are not the news, and if the reaction is significant then it can go on his main page. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary content fork at the moment. Situation can be re-evaluated once the dust settles next week. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic. Newsworthy is not the same as having encyclopedic value, no matter how confused we are on this point at times. Reso lute 04:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS; also looks like Death of Michael Jackson is back up again after being deleted yesterday, so probably no point in doing an AfD for this one. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 07:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Death of Michael Jackson. People are discussing there whether or not to have a separate article about the death. No need for this AfD. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, but that cannot be done before this discussion is closed :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it probably can, because it's a common sense solution. The title can stay as a redirect and the content isn't a matter for AfD anyway. Deletion is only ever about titles. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this title should persist. Cazort (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Cazort. No need for redirect. This redirect could be deleted as unnecessary. Lets just clean it up. Polargeo (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:29, 27 June 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.