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 keep.  Sandstein  17:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Physical appearance, health and diet of Michael Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Controversial and POV Craigy (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: As of this version of the Michael Jackson WP:FA review. When all/the vast majority of this content was in the Jackson article, it had 5 supports and 0 opposes for passing FA. Reviewers concluded that the article (which included this info) was neutral, reliable, well written and two of the supporters belief it to be better than the "Britannica" version. This content has already gone through an extentive review by some of wikipedias best article builders and source checkers and it was endorsed. Some of the content was removed to trim the Jackson article not because it was of poor quality. Note, the deletion nomination was made just 8 minutes after I set up the article. That was insufficient time for the nominater to read the article, check the sources, do their own research or check my history. The deletion nomination was made on the grounds that it is "controversial and pov". FA reviewers has already determined it to be neutral and wikipedia is not censored to avoid controversy. There are books and pictures of Jackson's vitiligo, Jackson himself has admitted he has vitiligo. He has also spoken openly about his drug addiction. We are not exposing some forgotten, hidden secret that could result in us being sued. Jackson has been quite open about these controversies so there is no issue with "Human digity". Also as I don't have an anti Jackson agenda I don't intend on writing nasty untruths about him. The article has also been listed as "High" on the importance scale of the Michael Jackson Wikiproject (by another editor). I agree to move the article to Health of Michael Jackson or Michael Jackson's health and make any alterations needed to comply with that title. There has also been suggestion that the article isn't needed because there isn't that much new info here, comments to that direction fail to realize that I fully intend to expand the article with the number of books I own on the subject. The article could reach approximately double this size according to my written plan. There will be lots of new info arriving (after I get this darn FA review out the way) so it is worth a new article. — Realist² (Speak) 00:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO EDITORS: There has now been a consensus that if the article does stay, it should be called Health of Michael Jackson or Michael Jackson's health. I am therefore writing and still adding to the article content according to these favored titles. — Realist² (Speak) 07:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP - You do not sensor wikipedia because something is controversial! The article is well sourced!! A large amount of the material is from the Michael Jackson article which is on its way to passing it's FA review. The content is well sourced and is accurate. I needed to build a sub article because the main Jackson article needed trimming to pass it's FA review. All sourced, all accurate. You tagged the article within 3 minutes which leads me to believe you didn't even read the article. Take YOUR biases elsewhere. Oh, by the way it is me who is getting the Michael Jackson article to featured statues, I probably know more on the subject than anyone on wikipedia. If the article is deleted I will need to readd a lot of this to the main article which could cause it to fail. — Realist² (Speak) 23:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that wasn't too arrogant, was it? As for the article - random trivia on the edge of WP:BLP violations. Put the little that is encyclopedic back in main article and dump the rest. Delete. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm what BLP violations are those? — Realist² (Speak) 23:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uh, the whole article, practically all sourced from two books? I could argue that it hardly has any reliable sources. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • How can you argue that when the Taraborrelli book is the most acclaimed book ever written on the subject? — Realist² (Speak) 23:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't hold any affection for Jackson, but you know as well as I that Taraborrelli's book (especially the later edition) was not exactly acclaimed for its attention to detail. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The latter version was released in 2004, all the stuff I have used in this article is the exact same info found in the 1991 edition. All the vitiligo and surgery stuff is the same in the 1991 edition (which was very acclaimed) and the 2004 edition, he didn't go back and rewrite the early chapters!! All the info used here is from when he was writing at his peak. Regardless, even the 2004 edition is way way way better than most books on Jackson. The article has some of the best sources available. Your reissue criticism doesn't hold water because the info used was written way before the reissue. — Realist² (Speak) 23:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP: Those source are without a doubt THE most reliable on the subject. Considering all the tabloid rumors about Jackson's health concerns, the main bio article and this sub-article are as factually accurate as possible. As far as BLP concerns, the article makes a serious attempt to give neutral, unbiased representation of documented facts and IMO does not violate basic human dignity or make any attempt to mock Jackson. The information is FA quality as it is a direct cut and paste from the main article and was only removed due to size issues, as were other facets of the article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have to say that the article is well-sourced and encyclopedic (though it could be improved to be less narrative). What about moving it to Michael Jackson's image? - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either that or Health concerns of Michael Jackson. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Futher Comment: I have no objections to renaming it, however I tryly believe this deletion preposal was either made in bad faith or without knowledge or understanding of the content or strengh of the sources. The fact that people were/are supporting the Michael Jackson article going to FA with this info included speaks volumes. The FA review has concluded that some of these sources are the best of the best. The Jackson article has been praised for it's neutrality, accuracy and sources. Please read the Michael Jackson review to see what others think of its neutality before deleting. This info wasn't removed because it was bad, it was removed because there was so much. I fully intend to extend it and nominate it for GA at some point. — Realist² (Speak) 00:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP. Article is well written and encyclopedic. Written using two books. Nom'ing Wikipedian questioning reliability of latest edition of one source of the article but material was in original acclaimed version. Additionally said wikipedian's argument on reliability is very flim flam, subjective and opinion, not based on anything substantial or objective. --Manboobies (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep The article has good refs and is encyclopedic. Although the title should be a little shorter.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 01:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep — The article should be watched (and possibly protected; it looks like a great article for vandals). It deserves a keep. It is well referenced, most of the material can be seen here, and it is certainly notable. Leonard^(Bloom) 02:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article will always be on my watchlist, I edit for hours a day, I can easily keep it clean, with or without semi protection, I invite others to watchlist it too. — Realist² (Speak) 02:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should of put this in my post, but it should also be moved. Health concerns of Micheal Jackson sounds good. Leonard^(Bloom) 02:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about just Health of Michael Jackson, his surgery has affected his heath physically (it actually improved his breathing but did have some negative affects) so it would be a health related issue but wouldn't be a "concern" as such. I think my suggestion allows for great inclusion of various info, whereas you heading is quite restrictive on any future inclusions I make. I also think my heading is a little more neutral if we avoid the word "concern". — Realist² (Speak) 02:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Health of Micheal Jackson would work. As long as the title changes from your original title (which was long and bulky) I'm fine. Leonard^(Bloom) 02:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have the article watchlisted as well. I'm also highly active on Wikipedia. I agree with "Health of Michael Jackson". The current title is too long.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 03:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • What about Michael Jackson's health? I think that his name should be the first part of the title. Also, it would appear when someone types 'Michael Jackson' or part thereof in a search box. Google might give it priority too. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sounds like an option. :-) — Realist² (Speak) 05:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect Most of these details are already covered in Michael Jackson adequately. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully intend to expand the article significantly though, your argument is mute. — Realist² (Speak) 05:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, no it isn't. I'm wary that it can support its own article, and don't think it's necessary. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, yes I own loads of books on the man and there is plenty more to write about, I have already planned it on paper!! — Realist² (Speak) 05:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename It's probably a worthwhile article, but the article title is ridiculous. JuJube (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, I really have no idea why I picked that name in hindsight. — Realist² (Speak) 05:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep/Rename - Sorry, we don't delete articles just because they are controversial or POV. If there is some POV, then fix it, don't delete it. Subject is certainly notable, and reliable sources have been used. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well referenced and no POV that I can see. Perfectly fine to have it as a separate article as the main Jackson article getting a bit large. Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This was already split off from a potential FA because of size issues, and it is still good encyclopedic information that is well-referenced. Gary King (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If the problem was controversial and POV, it should have been rewritten more neutrally. But there seems to be no problem at all. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Believe it or not an Admin made this nomination. I'm not going to speculate why right now. — Realist² (Speak) 21:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because there is plenty of context to justify this article, as Jackson's health has been a topic of much media discussion as the article even points out. Rename also to "Health of Michael Jackson" for clarity as well. I'm glancing through this article & the main jackson article and agree that if this were completely merged then the Jackson article would go obese again.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Too much detail for the main article, but a topic that has been the subject of much discussion and fascination. Most people don't merit an article on their appearance and health, but Michael Jackson is a special case. There are no POV or BLP issues that I see, but even if there were, that is a matter for cleanup, not deletion. Mangostar (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep but change the utterly ridiculous name. Well-sourced, but might go into too much detail. Is worthy of cleanup but not deletion. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 17:47, 26 July 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.