Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal relationships of Elvis Presley

:{{la|Personal relationships of Elvis Presley}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Personal_relationships_of_Elvis_Presley Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Personal relationships of Elvis Presley}})

A bloated WP:CFORK that is already effectively summarized at the Elvis Presley page. We don't need to know about all his friends or all the women he was ever with. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Deleteper nom's refreshingly blunt analysis and per my arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal relationships of Paul McCartney, a group nomination which included this article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. As Elvis Presley was a sex symbol, his personal relationships are of much importance and part of his personal history, especially as they are discussed in many articles and books written by mainstream Elvis biographers. As the main Wikipedia article is very long, most material dealing with Elvis's personal relationships has been removed from the main page to this page. This was accepted by many Wikipedians working on the Elvis article. Onefortyone (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

:*While people do consider relationships important to themselves, this page goes into excessive detail. Simply overkill. Being a sex symbol has nothing to do with that. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

::*This may be your personal opinion. But others think otherwise. As Elvis's relationships are well documented and discussed by many authors (see the many sources given, among them academic gender studies), this article should not be deleted. The personal lives of celebrities is a significant focus of public and media attention, and it is necessary for a full understanding of who they were. See also the articles on the Personal relationships of Alexander the Great, Leonardo da Vinci's personal life, Wives of Henry VIII, Personal relationships of James VI and I, Personal relationships of Frank Sinatra and the good article on the Personal relationships of Michael Jackson, which are not part of the main articles, to mention just a few examples on Wikipedia. Onefortyone (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

:::*See WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:CFORK. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

::::*What is written in this article is not effectively summarized on the Elvis Presley page. Furthermore, if significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion is inappropriate. The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. And there are many independent sources discussing Elvis's personal relationships. Your personal opinion is irrelevant. Onefortyone (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::*The concern isn't the depth of coverage or source reliability. Only the most prominent relationships should be discussed at all. Listing every single relationship he ever had on any page is simply going over-the-top, potentially even WP:UNDUE. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

::::::*This article only discusses those relationships that are of some importance and can be proved by reliable sources. Not every single relationship Elvis ever had is listed there. Although some further relationships may be added. Onefortyone (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::::*My point is that the page goes into excessive detail on them when there is no need to do so. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

::::::::*I do not think that the article goes into excessive detail. However, this is a page for going into more details - details that are supported by many independent sources and are not included in the main article for reasons of space. Therefore, this article has been created several years ago, as similar articles dealing with the Personal relationships of Alexander the Great, Leonardo da Vinci's personal life, Wives of Henry VIII, Personal relationships of James VI and I, Personal relationships of Frank Sinatra and Personal relationships of Michael Jackson have also been created. Onefortyone (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::*WP:OTHERSTUFF can't be solely used to keep/delete an article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::::*There can be no doubt that the article passes every rule and policy of Wikipedia. It includes a valid subtopic that has been split off due to size reasons. So it should not be deleted. Onefortyone (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep per Onefortyone and per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal relationships of Paul McCartney, the previous "keep" result for this article and others like it. Elvis was one of the biggest celebrities of the past century, and the extensive coverage of his life by countless sources (both contemporaneous to his life and subsequent) make such WP:SPLITs justified. On the deletion side, we seem to have the ipse dixit opinion of "SNUGGUMS thinks this is excessive detail". postdlf (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. As correctly pointed out in the prior AfD: of course a detailed encyclopedic biography will contain material about the subject's personal relationships, and expunging properly sourced material of this nature from Wikipedia's biographical coverage of major figures is contrary to both biographical standards and Wikipedia policy. Our coverage of Elvis is lengthy and thorough, as it should be. If there are editing issues, then edit. The subject is valid. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep: I dunno, I'm looking at a heavily cited article. Arxiloxos has it exactly: if you think the article's swamped with excessive detail, that's a content issue, not a deletion issue. Edit the damn thing. Nha Trang ^Allons! 22:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

: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.