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 delete. Kurykh 04:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Molestaion allegations against michael Jackson[edit]

This entire article is one huge BLP violation. And none of the sources is reliable. Corvus cornix 22:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, and would go as far as suggesting speedy deletion might be in order, given the unsourced allegations about several living people. The GQ articles would presumably be considered to be a reliable source, but they are listed as external links and the article contains allegations that are not supported by these articles (including anything after 1994, when they were published.) O~~n a less serious note, I find the mispelling in the title, and the fact that it has not been corrected for 2 and half years, a very discouraging sign for the accuracy of the article~~ --Slp1 23:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the supposed GQ article is not hosted on a GQ website, but on another site altogether, with no evidence that anything in the article really has anything to do with GQ at all. Corvus cornix 23:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a BLP minefield. If it's kept, fix the spelling of the title. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for reliable sources. Side note, the mispelling in the title is relatively recent (it was redirected Nov 1 2007 from "1993 child molestation allegations against Michael Jackson", which was the long standing title (see Michael Jackson controversies for verification of this). Irony ensues; this article didn't have any attention until it was redirected to the misspelled title. Still, I would say delete without sources for the BLP issues. Surely good sources can be found?? Keeper | 76 22:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying the name change thing, I looked carefully, but not in the right place it seems. One learns something new everyday! Slp1 23:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced POV rubbish. Neil ☎ 10:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dismal quality of sourcing for such serious allegations against not just one but multiple living persons. Badly written polemic (that's a fancy word for soapboxing, something that Wikipedia isn't for) into the bargain. Hmm, that's really just repeating what Neil said: badly sourced POV rubbish. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment If this article is deleted, the point is moot, but if it is kept, will someone please fix the title to be spelled correctly? I'll do it myself if I notice it first. Keeper | 76 20:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Does the info in Michael Jackson and People v. Jackson articles are enough for this stuff? That's a very bad article--JForget 00:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Utter garbage, no reliable sources, a magnet for vandals and editors keen on speculation and vulgarity. Unsalvagable. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Smear article against the young man who made the allegations against Jackson. Ineptly handled closure of November 17 debate has turned "Molestaion allegations" into a redirect to this. Mandsford (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2007 (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.