Talk:Michael Jackson HIStory statue
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 27 February 2019. The result of the discussion was redirect. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
External links modified (January 2018)
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Michael Jackson HIStory statue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://archive.is/20150421232331/http://www.jacksonevent.com/2009_best/news.html to http://www.jacksonevent.com/2009_best/news.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Merge
editThis doesn't deserve its own article. It's too short and can be covered in sufficient depth in the HIStory:_Past,_Present_and_Future,_Book_I article. The article is also poorly written, and only about half the text needs to be there at all. See WP:OVERLAP: If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For example, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity (and can be merged there)
Popcornduff (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Also, Akhiljaxxn, it would be great if you'd use an edit summary when you revert. It says right there when you click Undo: "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary." Popcornduff (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hey sorry for not using the edit summary. Please see WP:ASZ. There is sufficient significant independent coverage in multiple sources to indicate GNG. The current size of an article is utterly irrelevant when considering whether a subject is notable. Marrying this article and then expanding the section to cover all of it would lead to excessive focus on this topic. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 12:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think there's scope for expanding the article. Popcornduff (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- I've rewritten this to remove unnecessary crap and bad sources. I did incorporate notable information where I found it, such as the Spin response and the Vegas casino. However, as I predicted, the article is now even shorter. Popcornduff (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hey sorry for not using the edit summary. Please see WP:ASZ. There is sufficient significant independent coverage in multiple sources to indicate GNG. The current size of an article is utterly irrelevant when considering whether a subject is notable. Marrying this article and then expanding the section to cover all of it would lead to excessive focus on this topic. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 12:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)