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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Owynhart (talk | contribs) at 20:02, 24 March 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Cultural impact of Michael Jackson

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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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)[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]
  • 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]
  • 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)[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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cultural_impact_of_Michael_Jackson_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=947181756"