Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elvis Presley's influence

'''Note: This is an archived copy of a closed discussion with regard to an article that has been deleted. Please do not edit this page. If you disagree with this article's deletion please bring up your concerns at Votes for undeletion. Thank you.'''

Article Elvis Presley's influence listed on WP:VFD June 22 to July 1 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Elvis Presley has a long section containing all this and more entitled "enduring influence". No need for this. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 00:05, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC) User:Marcus2 has taken the material that used to be in Elvis Presley and moved it to this article. Should it still be deleted? I'm personally neutral, barring evidence. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 01:01, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I almost posted this myself. It's just about useless.  Delete. - Lucky 6.9 00:06, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: It is completely useless.  Who's going to look for it, and what on earth can that person learn from the search that isn't in Elvis Presley? Geogre 00:26, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you for listing this: I speedily deleted it the other day then got complained at rather bitterly by Marcus2 who created it (see my message on cleanup). I still think it needs to be deleted. -- Graham  &#9786; | Talk 00:32, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * This looks like a classic case of starting an article before you have any material. Delete, but without prejudice against any real article that may pop back up here. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 01:35, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. If the "influence" section in main Elvis Presley article is expanded to a point where it burdens down that page, then it can be moved to here, but we're nowhere near that point yet. &mdash;Stormie 03:21, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Agree with deleting for now; hopefully this or a similar article will be recreated in the future with plenty of details once the main article grows to a certain point. Everyking 05:31, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm still of the delete opinion. To me, the information belongs with Presley.  It's a natural informational development of a discussion of the singer.  On the other hand, robbing people of that information in that place to expect them to search separately for "EP's Influence" is unreasonable.  It's just not as useful an organization. Even if we keep this article, the info should be in the main EP article. Geogre 02:49, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think the "influence" material on Presley warrants a seperate article at this time. Revert the removal of the material from Elvis Presley and delete. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 04:18, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree. Replace the material in the main Elvis Presley article, and delete.  There is no good reason to separate this information from the main article.  The elvis article is not overly long with the influence material.  Separating it just makes it harder to find useful and interesting information.  &mdash;siro&chi;o 08:02, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute, if you think that Elvis Presley's influence material shouldn't of been moved from the main article, I was wondering if you were aware about the article entitled, the Beatles' influence. If anything, it has no more reason to exist than the EP's influence article, and it has no more reason to be included in the Beatles' main article. --Marcus2
 * That article was split out from the main article when it was twice the size of the Elvis influence material. If you want to break something out into a seperate article, you're going to have to make a better case than "This other article did it (under different circumstances)". -- Cyrius|&#9998; 19:01, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia exists for its articles to be expanded. --Marcus2
 * So expand it. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 21:41, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I looked at the article, and it doesn't look that easy for me to do. I'm not too familiar with Elvis's influence, and there is definitely someone who is superior to me in the knowledge of this topic. --Marcus2
 * Comment: It's been rightfully pointed out that Wikipedia is not paper, but nor are servers cheap.  This article doesn't say anything different than what one would find at the main article and it's highly unlikely that anyone would type in "Elvis Presley's influence" before merely typing "Elvis Presley" or even "Elvis."  IMO, this doesn't even make for a good redirect.  Tossing in the obligatory two cents yet again. - Lucky 6.9 23:13, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * The influence info that used to be found in the main article has been cut out and moved to the EP's influence page, and it's no less unlikely that someone would dare type in "the Beatles' influence", an article that already exists. --Marcus2
 * Keep Elvis Presley's influence as a separate article. The influence of a deceased artist (using the term broadly here) is as much about the influencees as the influencer. Also, moving this stuff back into Elvis Presley would make it too long. Fwiw I don't think the server issue is relevant here, since, if anything, server load is lessened by splitting articles (assuming the total amount of text stays the same). Wile E. Heresiarch 15:39, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but Elvis Presley should have a summary rather than just a "see also" link. Fredrik | talk 17:05, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Move back to Elvis Presley and delete. RickK 18:56, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Again, were you not aware of an article entitled "the Beatles' influence"? --Marcus2 20:28, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Here's an important consideration. The Enduring legacy section is only vaguely about influence and mostly trivia about him and his accomplishments. If we wish to keep this page, the entire section titled "Enduring legacy" will have to be moved back to the main Elvis Presley page, leaving a stub.  Regardless of whether people vote to keep the stub, that section must be moved back to Elvis Presley or at the very least to Elvis Presley trivia.  The latter causing even more separation  of information.  So I keep my vote at delete.  &mdash;siro&chi;o 19:49, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * OK. I've moved the section to the new article you pointed out. Now, as you know, there is a good amount of separation on info about the Beatles. Marcus2 00:37, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * merge and redirect; the main article is still to short for it to be split like this --Jiang 00:36, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, the article needs some expanding, but don't expect me to do all of it. Marcus2 00:38, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Splits like this should only be made if the article is too long. This rarely occurs. Doing the split before it is necessary makes the article hard to read. --Jiang 20:08, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Revert or re-merge and delete. -Sean Curtin 01:02, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you mean by this? Marcus2 09:01, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Again, don't expect me to do every bit of expanding. Everybody should chip in. Marcus2 13:53, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * If you weren't going to expand it yourself, why did you separate it out? Your arguments make it look like envy of the number and size of the articles on the Beatles. I really hope this is not the case. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 18:58, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Much to your satisfaction, not really. I just wanted to create this article so that in the future someone with far more knowledge of Elvis than I have will add more details to the article. That's what Wikipedia's all about after all. Marcus2 20:24, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * When it comes to splitting things out, we expand first, then split. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 22:03, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Is that exactly how it must be all the time? Marcus2 22:16, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Unless somebody makes a convincing argument to make an exception. Which hasn't happened yet. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 23:44, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - for this you need an entire article? - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  00:28, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * By the way even though the article has been altered my vote is still to delete (I've crossed out my original vote above that referred to a sub stub) -- Graham &#9786; | Talk 00:31, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I may not know a lot about Elvis's influence, but I do know that it's strong internationally, so it makes sense to me to begin an article about it. Marcus2 12:46, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * There isn't a single section in the Elvis article that's large enough to need a separate page, especially considering how sparse the article is right now. -Sean Curtin 16:40, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Now, most certainly not. Marcus2 22:50, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Nobody's saying Elvis can't have a page on his influence later. It's just that now, there isn't enough there for one. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 02:40, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, what about other pages that have stubs? Can't they exist if there isn't enough info yet? And besides, a lot has changed since I separated the inflence section from the Elvis Presley page. Marcus2 12:21, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm getting tired of repeating the same statements. This article was a section of an existing article. We generally do not separate out sections into their own articles unless they are big enough that they pose a problem for the original article and/or can stand alone. The section on Elvis's influence does not meet that criterion as it is a Please stop talking about other articles, and talk about this one.
 * And now Marcus2 has made things worse by separating out another article, Elvis Presley trivia, leaving Elvis Presley's influence as barely a stub! If people have a problem with this one being too small, what made you think it would be a good idea to turn it into two smaller articles!? Merge Elvis Presley's influence and Elvis Presley trivia back into Elvis Presley, and delete Template:Elvis Presley. As has been stated repeatedly, if you want them to have their own articles, expand them until they justify it first. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 19:09, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * How's about we just let it stand and see what becomes of it. Marcus2 21:03, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * How's about we don't? -- Cyrius|&#9998; 22:31, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * If you keep this up, I wouldn't be surprised if the Elvis articles all get protected at least until the VfD is over. Also: vote to re-merge Elvis Presley trivia into Elvis Presley and delete Template:Elvis Presley. -Sean Curtin 22:37, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I have a very good reason to keep it up. I'm still trying to get some sense into you. Let's just let it stand and see what someone has to say in the future. It's when something is separated that gets quicker attention, not when it's still part of an article. Marcus2 23:20, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * And I have not been frequently editing Elvis's pages! Marcus2 23:25, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

End discussion