| Revision as of 03:35, 29 October 2019 edit4meter4 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users109,081 edits →Michael Jackson's Boys← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:36, 29 October 2019 edit undoDeboleena.ghy (talk | contribs)122 edits →Michael Jackson's BoysTags: Mobile edit Mobile web editNext edit → | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| *'''Keep''' as it aired on national television, as I seem to understand ], and has an academic article about it. It could be improved, but that's not a reason to delete it. ] (]) 23:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' as it aired on national television, as I seem to understand ], and has an academic article about it. It could be improved, but that's not a reason to delete it. ] (]) 23:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' per Atlantic306 and ChrisWar666. Easily passes ]. The article already surpassed the number of citations needed to meet ] before it was nominated. The nominator clearly has a poor understanding of policy.] (]) 03:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' per Atlantic306 and ChrisWar666. Easily passes ]. The article already surpassed the number of citations needed to meet ] before it was nominated. The nominator clearly has a poor understanding of policy.] (]) 03:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' as the aforementioned article isn't backed up with necessary reliable sources or in depth coverage of facts. ] (]) 07:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:36, 29 October 2019
Michael Jackson's Boys
AfDs for this article:New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- How to contribute
- Introduction to deletion process
- Guide to deletion (glossary)
- Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
- Michael Jackson's Boys (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)
It does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NFILM, doesn't even have an entry on RottenTomatoes. Also, I was unable to find any significant coverage online that shows any lasting notability. TruthGuardians (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Can't find any third party coverage. May not meet WP:NFILM. Kaotoshi (talk) 12:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- What about the third party coverage cited in the article? Couldn't you find that? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- There wasn't any third party coverage, the article still lacks enough sources for a separate article.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaotoshi (talk • contribs) 18:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- The topic may or may not have enough sources for a separate article, but it is pretty obviously untrue that there is no third party coverage, because such coverage is cited right there in the article, and was well before you made your first comment, including an 18-page peer-reviewed academic paper about this topic. Let's base our comments on evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete In case it is useful, the program quotes Terry George saying " 'I had phone sex with Jacko,' that's what the press wrote." Createangelos (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Createangelos: Why should that quote justify to delete the article? --SI 07:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. There is and was more coverage, like , and newspaper articles from 2005 that are not on the internet nowadays. --SI 07:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. While the articles you mention are from reliable sources, these sources just do not prove in-depth coverage or lasting impact. They pretty much mention the documentary in passing so it does not meet the expectation for WP:GNG and WP:V thus Delete. I might add that the documentary was only taking advantage of the 2005 circus around Jackson at that time and fed into the hands of tabloid rumor and innuendo. There is no lasting impact, coverage, or citing material from this documentary. TruthGuardians (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- How is an 18-page article completely about this documentary in a peer-reviewed academic journal only mentioning it "in passing"? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- First of all, this is not an 18-page article completely about this documentary in a peer-reviewed academic journal. In fact, this journal is much larger than 18 pages and was about fare more topics than this tabloid frenzied documentary. Furthermore, you didn't cite the academic article correctly. The first sentence of the article says, "Michael Jackson's Boys is a 2005 British TV documentary about the unusual way how Michael Jackson for most of his adult life had surrounded himself with teenage boys." This is faundmentally wrong. Finally, one academic article simply isn't enough to keep a WP article, it never has been.TruthGuardians (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- Of course the journal has other articles in it - it would be ludicrous to claim otherwise, or that that fact invalidates this article - but this 18-page article is all about Michael Jackson's Boys. Right in the publicly-available abstract linked by the DOI it says, "this paper focuses on the British television documentary, Michael Jackson's Boys". If you feel that the wording of our article doesn't follow the source accurately then edit it, but don't pretend that this source doesn't exist or only has a passing mention. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- I have discovered a freely available copy of this journal article here (I previously accessed a subscription copy through my university library). You can see for yourself that it is 18 pages long and completely focussed on this documentary. How about using it to improve our article rather than claiming that it does not exist? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- The article has 4 references: First reference is incorrectly cited and is sourced from, at best, a tabloid. It’s not credible. The second one is a 18 page journal supplied by you. Reference three is only mentioning the sensationalistic documentary in passing. Finally, the fourth reference is just a repeat of the same academic article. Also, according to the source itself, it’s only assumptions being made. Susan Hidalgo and Robert G. Weiner of Texas Tech University assume that the film uses “hearsay, insinuations, and assumptions" and effects and music for creating "a sense of danger and fear.” is does not correlate with this article at all. Hidalgo and Weiner are suppliers for various academic articles. They're just summarizing what Epstein argued. Overall, I’m not in favor of keeping this article by using only the second reference. This, even STILL, does not meet expectation for WP:GNG and does not have enough potential to have a seperate article. TruthGuardians (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm glad that you are finally assuming good faith and recognizing that that one source is genuine. If you had done so earlier then it might have been possible to have a proper discussion here rather than have me arguing against a brick wall. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- The article has 4 references: First reference is incorrectly cited and is sourced from, at best, a tabloid. It’s not credible. The second one is a 18 page journal supplied by you. Reference three is only mentioning the sensationalistic documentary in passing. Finally, the fourth reference is just a repeat of the same academic article. Also, according to the source itself, it’s only assumptions being made. Susan Hidalgo and Robert G. Weiner of Texas Tech University assume that the film uses “hearsay, insinuations, and assumptions" and effects and music for creating "a sense of danger and fear.” is does not correlate with this article at all. Hidalgo and Weiner are suppliers for various academic articles. They're just summarizing what Epstein argued. Overall, I’m not in favor of keeping this article by using only the second reference. This, even STILL, does not meet expectation for WP:GNG and does not have enough potential to have a seperate article. TruthGuardians (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- First of all, this is not an 18-page article completely about this documentary in a peer-reviewed academic journal. In fact, this journal is much larger than 18 pages and was about fare more topics than this tabloid frenzied documentary. Furthermore, you didn't cite the academic article correctly. The first sentence of the article says, "Michael Jackson's Boys is a 2005 British TV documentary about the unusual way how Michael Jackson for most of his adult life had surrounded himself with teenage boys." This is faundmentally wrong. Finally, one academic article simply isn't enough to keep a WP article, it never has been.TruthGuardians (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- How is an 18-page article completely about this documentary in a peer-reviewed academic journal only mentioning it "in passing"? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. While the articles you mention are from reliable sources, these sources just do not prove in-depth coverage or lasting impact. They pretty much mention the documentary in passing so it does not meet the expectation for WP:GNG and WP:V thus Delete. I might add that the documentary was only taking advantage of the 2005 circus around Jackson at that time and fed into the hands of tabloid rumor and innuendo. There is no lasting impact, coverage, or citing material from this documentary. TruthGuardians (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Sources in the article do not show significant coverage in independent RS, so it fails WP:GNG. WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This page cites 2 sources (+ 2 AFD sources), but none of them have received reliable in-depth coverage. Most of the sources are WP:ROUTINE news reporting about sexual allegations against Jackson. Israell (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- How is an 18-page article completely about this documentary in a peer-reviewed academic journal not "significant coverage in independent RS"? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- Keep the peer reviewed journal article, New York Times piece and book sources already in the article show that WP:GNG is clearly passed and the delete votes are not policy grounded but based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- The article has 4 references: First reference is incorrectly cited and is sourced from, at best, a tabloid. It’s not credible. The second one is a 18 page journal supplied by you. Reference three is only mentioning the sensationalistic documentary in passing. Finally, the fourth reference is just a repeat of the same academic article. Also, according to the source itself, it’s only assumptions being made. Susan Hidalgo and Robert G. Weiner of Texas Tech University assume that the film uses “hearsay, insinuations, and assumptions" and effects and music for creating "a sense of danger and fear.” is does not correlate with this article at all. Hidalgo and Weiner are suppliers for various academic articles. They're just summarizing what Epstein argued. Overall, I’m not in favor of keeping this article by using only the second reference. This, even STILL, does not meet expectation for WP:GNG and does not have enough potential to have a seperate article. TruthGuardians (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- Keep as it aired on national television, as I seem to understand WP:NTV, and has an academic article about it. It could be improved, but that's not a reason to delete it. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per Atlantic306 and ChrisWar666. Easily passes WP:TVSHOW. The article already surpassed the number of citations needed to meet WP:SIGCOV before it was nominated. The nominator clearly has a poor understanding of policy.4meter4 (talk) 03:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as the aforementioned article isn't backed up with necessary reliable sources or in depth coverage of facts. Deboleena.ghy (talk) 07:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)