Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:22, 18 April 2020

18 April 2020

Cultural impact of Michael Jackson

Cultural impact of Michael Jackson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closing note as well as the subsequent discussion failed to find a rationale behind the close as "no consensus". The correct result of the AfD had to be delete because of the following reasons:

1. The article is a WP:POVFORK because all content already exists on Michael Jackson. Article violates WP:OR because of gross misrepresentation of sources and it reads like a total WP:FANPAGE.
2. Not a single !vote rejected the fact that the article is a WP:POVFORK, WP:OR and WP:FANPAGE.
3. "Keep" !votes only depended on WP:PLENTY, WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST and WP:Clearly notable.
4. Off-wiki canvassing and meatpuppetry is a established concern regarding this subject and this has view has been successfully established per this WP:AN thread.
5. At least 8/18 Keep !votes were made by off-wiki WP:CANVASSED editors who were not editing for weeks or months before the creation of the AfD. One "Keep" admitted that he was recruited off-wiki.
6. On-wiki canvassing was also carried out by Keep supporters.
7. One editor who voted for "keep", was calling every "delete" supporter a troll and accusing them of malice. He was topic banned.
8. Many "keep" !votes were only spewing their obsession about Michael Jackson, personally attacking editors, bludgeoning, and falsely accusing participants of racism.
9. Not a single admin supported keeping the article but multiple admins like Neutrality, Drmies, supported deletion of the article.

Given all of the misconduct and clear-cut deceptive tricks performed by the "keep" votes, one can be easily convinced that not only the "keep" votes lacked any basis to debunk the nomination but demonstrated a lack of WP:AGF. With the formation of such a toxic environment, it must have either falsely convinced many of the editors to either suggest "keep" or just leave the AfD. Nevertheless, there appears to be enough support for the deletion. Excelse (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@JG66:, what do you have to say about all that? For some obvious reason, Excelse has completely omitted the fact IP address 173.79.47.227, a brand-new user, only appeared on Misplaced Pages for that vote and did indulge in vote-canvassing . They've never ever posted anything ever since. (Their very first edit is a vote regarding the 'List of postal codes in Portugal'; that vote appears to only have been cast to avoid an accusation of WP:NOTHERE.)

Excelse is not assuming good faith, accusing many "Keep" editors of being SPAs or what not. The "Keep" voters made a very strong point as to why the article must remain, and serious, constant efforts have been made to improve the article—the article was greatly improved, all POV/puffery was removed, and the article is constantly being enriched and improved in tone, content and quality (and Michael Jackson has undisputedly had a tremendous cultural impact). There is therefore no reason whatsoever to delete it. Any call for deletion at this point, in my observation, is purely partisan. I have nothing more to add on this issue. Israell (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse the "no consensus", easily defendable. There may be some useful advice at WP:RENOM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse the no-consensus closure. I can't be bothered to follow a single one of the links Excelse provides above. I've seen enough of their so-called contributions here to know they'e very selective with the truth. Going back years, they seem to disappear and then reappear doing very little to article main space and, quite frankly, goose stepping around the place. And talk about a disingenuous report on the goings-on at the AfD ...
• An enormous amount of work has gone into improving the article – I did plenty – and plenty more can and should be done. Someone in the AfD said that they could see this article becoming an FA; I've helped get articles to FA (though I've never nominated myself) and I agree with that idea, and it was in my mind the more I helped expand the content. There are sources I didn't get around to investigating such as the Popular Music & Society articles we currently cite. I don't believe we're exploiting them anywhere near to their full potential with regard to this subject; and (no disrespect to others who tried to expand the article in the past) I think these opportunities have been wasted as keep editors may have been either too inexperienced or too fixated on establishing that Michael Jackson had a significant cultural impact, rather than building an article that discusses and explores this phenomenon. I found such missed opportunities in some of the more mainstream sources we use (a Rolling Stone article comes to mind) – it was astonishing how little we'd exploited these resources, given the statements they contain. Which is why with articles titles such as "Black or White? Michael Jackson and the Idea of Crossover", "Synesthesia, 'Crossover,' and Blacks in Popular Music", "Michael Jackson in/as U.S. Popular Culture" – all from Popular Music & Society or other journals currently in the Bibliography (but under-utilised in the text) – I'm confident that the article's got huge potential. I can't speak policy-ese and I don't wikilawyer, but it seemed to me then, as it does now in this review, that policy-ese and wikilawyering is all some people were capable of, and they haven't got a clue about writing an article or what actually constitutes a good (/Good/Featured) article on Misplaced Pages. JG66 (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)