Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 2

2 July 2007

List of common phrases in various languages

List of common phrases in various languages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

At 13 out of 34 participants opining that the article should be deleted,I do not believe that there was any consensus on deleting this article. The deleting admin is open to do a transwiki of this article, however I do not believe that there is any consensus for that either. As far as the content of the article is concerned, I argue that it is encyclopedic on the basis that Encarta has a similar, more expanded module in their software that compliments their languages article. Thanks. --Chris S. 07:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse (my) deletion. Firstly, if we're going by head count (which I don't anyway), there were several additional arguments to transwiki in addition to those for outright deletion. An argument to transwiki effectively states "This content is appropriate somewhere, but it's not here," and is in essence an argument to delete from Wikipedia. Regardless of this, however, and while many arguments on both the keep and delete side were less than impressive ("useful", "effort", "cruft", and so on), good points regarding the issues of verifiability and suitability here were brought up. Encarta may well include similar miscellany, but they don't have other projects in which it would be more appropriate, and which are better geared to handle material of this type. We do. It's educational, useful, and reasonably well-done, but it's not an encyclopedia article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment This comment addresses two points. The first is the AfD procedure. Combining both the deletion and transwiki opinions is a creative effort. You're right, that 60% (is that consensus?) of those felt that Wikipedia wasn't the right place for this article. However, let's dig further. Despite seven people opining that the article should be Transwiki, there was no consensus on where it should have been done. Only four editors felt that it should be sent to Wikibooks with only two out of that four stating it as their only choice (the other two where undecided as to where). Dealing with the other pro-Transwiki editors, two did not know where to put it. And one other person decided that Wiktionary would be an appropriate place.

Now, don't get me wrong here but I think two out of 34 barely qualifies for consensus. But still, it is pretty clear, Seraphimblade, that there is no consensus on what action to take as far as Transwiki is concerned. Neither was there consensus to delete it. If Transwiki is the desired option, then perhaps the article should be restored and from there, another AfD should be started in order to make a strong case for Transwiki to a specific Wikiproject. But short of that, I do not feel it is justified to be Transwikied now, under this particular AfD ruling.

My second point is about the article itself. You're right, it is not an encyclopedia article. It is a list. I regard this list the same way I do List of numbers in various languages, which supplements the numbers article. This list of common phrases (and I do agree that the name should be changed) is a supplement to the language article because it gives the encyclopedia reader information, all in one place, on how various languages say particular words or phrases. In this respect it is not a usage or style guide or even a touristy phrasebook. And if the article is overturned, then steps should be taken in order to assure that doesn't happen. The purpose it serves is to give a survey of language. I have cited Encarta ad nauseam but the "New Book of Knowledge" (I believe, I may be wrong. It could be World Encyclopedia) has done it on a smaller scale for Romance languages. --Chris S. 17:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment The lack of agreement on where to transwiki isn't really an issue, that's between the editors who wish to transwiki and the policies of the other wiki(s). Let's say, for example, that Wiktionary, Wikibooks, and Wikiversity all are willing to accept the material. We don't have to choose, "all of the above" is a perfectly valid option in such a case! We're not dealing with a situation of mutual exclusivity on that note. As to your statement that reading "Transwiki" as I did is creative, I'm not really sure why. "Delete" expands to "This material is not appropriate for Wikipedia." "Transwiki" means that too, just with "(but we can transfer it to another project)" added. Even a unanimous consensus to delete wouldn't prohibit someone from doing a transwiki if they wished to, no consensus here is necessary to do so—only a consensus at the receiving project that they will accept it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose deletion, agree with Chris. --Node 09:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion - Mostly per nom, but also per WP:PAPER and Wiki is not paper. It is definitely an encyclopedic topic. Just because we can export it, doesn't mean we should. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 13:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at it this way: "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." This improves the encyclopedia just because it fails WP:WHATEVER doesn't mean it doesn't improve the encyclopedia. This is encyclopedic material. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 13:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

IAR has no relevance here because no rule-lawyering has been done. Wikipedia not being a dictionary or usage guide is both a basic policy and a corollary of the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Pan Dan 14:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• The decision to delete was right. Consensus should not be determined by counting the bolded votes but by looking at what the discussion reveals about how policy applies to the article. No serious argument was advanced at the AfD that this page is now, or could ever be, consistent with the idea that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Chris S.'s point in the AfD that the article is not a dictionary because it's not comprehensive is of course true, but not really relevant to WP:WINAD. Pan Dan 14:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki/Endorse deletion from Wikipedia - Only a minority of people (approximately 1/3) wanted to keep the article, and most of the "keep" arguments described the page as useful either as a general reference or for lingual research. The other 2/3 of the people indicated that the material does not belong in Wikipedia, thus providing adequate consensus for deletion. The best solution is to copy this to a more appropriate Wiki, as suggested by 1/3 of the comments. The administrator even offered to provide the text of the old page to any editor who wanted to do this. Dr. Submillimeter 15:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 13/34 is not a third. Wimstead 14:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse close this was really non-encyclopedic. Encarta positions itself as an encyclopedia and a dictionary & many other encyclopedias, print & online, have had a dictionary as a separate supplementary work--and so does Wikipedia. DGG 22:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Clear and obvious endorse deletion. Define "various". Define "common". Completely arbitrary, can't be anything else. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Seraphim completley justified. Bulldog123 23:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion It isn't relevant whether people commenting here think the article merited retention. The question is whether procedures were followed. There was no consensus to delete this so it should not have been deleted. Haddiscoe 23:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Restore article. The decision to delete was obviously wrong, as there was no consensus. Moreover, I can't see in the AfD any solid argument for deletion, quite on the contrary. Deleting this article is just as bad as removing the language sample sections in all the language articles, because they belong here and are verifiable just as much as this list. Sure thing, the article has its problems, starting with the title and the introduction, but that is certainly fixable. — AdiJapan ☎ 11:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Examples of languages can in most cases by provided by using excerpts of good literature. Considering that sentences like "where's the toilet" is among the most advanced examples provided in this unwieldy monster of a list, it's anything but representative of genuine languages. Peter ^Isotalo 00:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  Excerpts from literature are good if you want to get an impression of one language, but they do not allow comparison. "Where's the toilet" was indeed a bad choice, but we don't have to delete the whole article for that. — AdiJapan ☎ 02:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  It has already been pointed out[1] by an actual linguist (who, like Angr, has a Ph.D.) that so-called common phrases are pretty worthless for linguistic comparison. Swadesh lists have more merit, but the problem is still that the place for it isn't Wikipedia, but other projects. It's at best whimsical and overly colloquial, even without the silly bathroom request. No matter how much you try to reform the article/list/whatever, it's still going to be either a guide for how to get along with the locals as a mere tourist or completely arbitrary "common" phrases, which amount to nothing but a phrase book, dictionary or crash course in a thousand languages all at once. Bishonen summarizes the awkardness of the article very eloquently and (or the umpteenth time) I have to stress that neither Wikipedia nor Wiktionary nor Wikibooks or any other of our projects benefit from us trying to keep stuff simply because we like to see it included here. Go help the other projects instead of forcing us to be a mere information dumping ground; we already have a place for that and it's called the internet. Peter ^Isotalo 17:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  You're comparing apples and oranges. Two types of comparisons are being dealt here. The first is within the realm of historical linguistics or more specifically, comparative linguistics. This is for a very specific purpose, and only linguists would make use of it. Mark Dingemanse is correct in saying that it would be uninteresting or practically useless to linguists (they'd have to be related, first of all!). However, the article is not about historical linguistics and neither is it solely intended for linguists. There is a wider audience, who have had no training in linguistics. This is an article about languages, by the way, and not linguistics. So the second kind of comparisons is a survey, just to give a reader an idea on how certain language express certain concepts - these are concepts that just happen to be useful for tourists, and so what is wrong with that? It does not necessarily indicate that it's meant to be a tourist guide, although with certain languages it has certainly evolved to that stage. And as I said before, it's fixable. --19:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedia isn't a place for original research even of the "useful, interesting, I-like it" kind. Peter ^Isotalo 20:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  Just how exactly is it original research? --Chris S. 20:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Restore. It's hard to say what an encyclopedia is, considering that we're now the largest one in human history; but it does seem that Encarta is an encyclopedia, and has such an article. That would seem to be strong evidence that this article is encyclopedic. It's still debatable (for example, we're not Encarta), but the debate was held, and it seems clear that side won the debate. We with the mop aren't supposed to set consensus, merely carry it out. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Restore We can't have Encarta be more comprehensive than Wikipedia, can we? --Xiaphias 19:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Restore as encyclopedic content and the "consensus to delete" was marginal at best. Carlossuarez46 21:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Restore There was no consensus to delete. Sumahoy 22:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: sockpuppet account, as described here. >Radiant< 06:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Restore This title does not belong in a dictionary, as it is not a dictionary definition, but it would be no surprise to find it in any encyclopedia as a part of its encyclopedic coverage of lingustics. Olborne 23:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: sockpuppet account, as described here. >Radiant< 06:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Restore I had always found this page very useful. ErikB 03:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment While I'm glad you wish to see the article restored, it's been established that usefulness is not a valid criterion. If you or anyone else have other justifiable reasons, please share. --Chris S. 22:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. >Radiant< 10:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Neither is this article. It's a list of phrases giving a survey, by use of common phrases, of various languages. --Chris S. 22:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The content of this article is dictionary content. Wikipedia not being a dictionary means this kind of content goes on Wiktionary but not Wikipedia. I encourage everybody who is interested in adding information to a Wikimedia project about phrases in various languages, to do so at wikt:Category:Phrases. Pan Dan 14:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse because AFD is a discussion, not a vote. The arguments to keep boiled down to "It's useful" and WP:ILIKEIT, neither of which (regardless of the number of people repeating them) can overcome the fact that it was a blatant violation of WP:NOT, not to mention being almost completely unverified. The last makes tranwikiing not an option, since Wiktionary won't accept unreferenced, unverifiable lists of tourist phrases any more than Wikipedia will. —Angr 19:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've been avoiding the term "vote" since clearly this is not what it should be about. I am familiar with the AfD process, and I know that it is based on consensus. How can consensus be determined by a minority of editors? The thing about the unverified content of this discussion is that it's easily verifiable, since there is a wealth of information about various languages. My point is, it may be a flaw, but it's a fixable one. And what, may I ask, is this article violating about WP:NOT? --Chris S. 22:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It's still an issue of not being a dictionary, and this is quite clearly something that attempts to list translations of the same phrases in as many langauges as possible (making it utterly undoable and arbitrary). We have Wikibooks and Wiktionary to help people learn languages and we're only making their job harder by trying to make Wikipedia something it was never intended to be. Peter ^Isotalo 00:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. It's not a vote. It was appropriately deleted. Wryspy 06:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Of course it isn't a vote. But where is the consensus and the valid arguments for deletion? Let's review the deletion arguments:
    1. The nominating editor (and five other editors agreed) said "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, a usage guide, an idiom guide, or a travel guide. The article is completely unsourced, unverified, and OR-prone; the title too is awkward." It has been established either here or in the AfD that the article was not a dictionary, usage guide, idiom guide, or a travel guide, but instead as a supplementary article to the the articles on language. I'll also repeat by paraphrasing that the lack of sources and verifiablity can also be changed. Even the awkward title.
    2. Three editors, with one concurring, have said that the article is cruft. I'm not even sure that's even a valid argument (it's as valid as saying it's "useful").
    3. Two editors said that it was "unmaintainable." The article has been maintained for almost six years. There was no direction then until recently. Now we have a guide, Encarta, to work from. The article should more or less conform by the standards that Encarta has set forth in its own similar article. Yes, it's pretty clear that it needs a clean-up (which I stated in the AfD) and now there's direction to do so.
  • So there you have it, folks. I could not find a strong argument from the deletion side. Many of the deletionist arguments are based upon the negative attributes of the article (duh). However, these negative attributes are fixable - especially verifiability, which is why closing admin, Seraphimblade, moved to delete it (according to his closing statement). But the verifiability criterion is clearly a weak argument since vast sources are available, just head to your nearest bookstore or library. There is hope for the article to be improved. It is not a hopeless case! --Chris S. 09:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn clearly no consensus for deletion there.  Grue  21:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse This is simply a misplacing of information. It's the equivalent of having a full-blown treatise on gladiator combat in an article about Spratacus. That's something usually defined as a lack of focus and is actually not very useful to readers. Peter ^Isotalo 00:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The AfD was properly closed per cogent arguments on the Delete side. A list of phrases for tourists? When did Wikipedia become a how-to guide? The introduction reads "Tourists to a foreign country often get along with a surprisingly short list of phrases, combined with pointing, miming, and writing down numbers on paper. This list is intended to serve as a comprehensive basic introduction to those languages." Please explain what's encyclopedic about such a purpose. And if the introduction is blanked or rewritten, per being "fixable", the purpose and supposed usefulness of the page will remain enshrined in the lists of phrases themselves, as they are tourist phrases. "Where's the bathroom", indeed. Hello, goodbye, do you speak English. This page is an embarrassment. It's the equivalent of pointing and miming. Bishonen | talk 09:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment The late Charles Berlitz wrote a book titled Native Tongues which was designed to deliver facts about the world's various languages. I recall there being a section outlining how certain languages express certain things. This was given in a format giving the basics - greetings, the words for yes/no, thank you, etc. Just like the article in question, this section of the book was in no way intended for tourists as it was too rudimentary to be so. The intent of this article is not to be a tourist guide. If a tourist were to use it, then good luck to them, but they won't get very far as the article isn't that comprehensive to be one. What use would a tourist bound for Madrid have for this article when there are other languages on it? He'd be better off with a, uh, Berlitz phrasebook. --Chris S. 19:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • So it's a quick-reference phrasebook for advanced language learners. What's the justification for housing something like that in an encyclopedia? Peter ^Isotalo 20:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
      • No, it isn't a quick-reference. Please reread what I wrote above. Thanks. --Chris S. 20:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary! Goodness gracious, people, we have an entire dictionary for this sort of thing. Send it there; it's useful information and they are quite capable of deciding whether they can do anything with it or not. This editing community shouldn't be making that editing community's decisions for them. And that's what Wiktionary *does* -- the ability to compare phrases in different languages that they have is very helpful. If not that, don't we have some "learning languages" wikibooks? This shouldn't be an argument over whether this page would ever be helpful to someone -- of course it would be, and anyway that's not how we judge articles. It's verifiable content -- just not perhaps in exactly the right form for Wikipedia. -- phoebe/(talk) 02:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lingleinauguration2002.jpg

Image:Lingleinauguration2002.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Lingleinauguration2002.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|IfD)

I'm having a hard time understanding why this was deleted. The deleting admin even voted keep in the discussion and agreed it was fair use. I removed this image from 3 articles it was not fair use in, but it was definitely fair use in Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress. It showed an unrepeatable historic moment, Linda Lingle's controversial taking of an oath upon a Tanakh in the time period when taking oaths upon non-Bibles erupted into social controversy in the United States -N 16:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I was the admin who deleted it. Yeah, I thought that the images was (barely) acceptable in the article it was in. However, it looked to me like the consensus was against me and N, and the most knowledgeable policy-wonks thought the image violated NFCC#2 and possibly #8 as well. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -N 02:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - news media photos are not acceptable for fair use. The moment may not be repeatable, but that doesn't give us the right to use somebody's photo of it unless the PHOTO ITSELF is iconic. This one isn't - any photo of the event would do. To use this image would be a flagrant copyright violation. --BigΔT 06:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, this is basically to show what the event looked like, not a place where inclusion of the photo is necessary as the photo itself is being discussed or is a critical part of the story. (For appropriate use of a photo under "historical" claims, see Kim Phuc, where the photo itself is an integral and iconic part of the story.) I imagine we could get a free-use photo of someone swearing on a book other than the Bible as this practice becomes more common; there might even be a federal-government photo of the event available somewhere. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn This was delted basically on the same arguement that Seraphimblade makes above. But that arguiement is not supported by WP:FUC. FUC says that the image can only be used if no obtanable image would "serve the encyclopedic purpose". But most encyclopedias use images of acrtual historic events, not reproductions, when available, and wile possibly not essential, such images to help users (humans are visually oriented beings) to grasp the event. The event itself was a mattr of significant interst, adn anothr simialr event, ort a astaged reproduction, whould not have the same encyclopedic effect. DES ^(talk) 17:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Replaceable doesn't matter when it's a news media photo. To use it without permission or paying royalties would be a flagrant copyright violation. --BigΔT 21:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • As I said above, where exactly is this special rule for news media photos spelled out in a policy page? I can't find it in WP:FUC or any other relevant page. As for being a "flagrant copyright violation" fair use is precisely about the right, granted by law (the same law that protects copyright in the first place) to use copyrighted content without permission or payment under limited circumstances. Content from the news media are used under fair use all the time. They have no legal exemption. if you are arguing that one of the particular limits on fair use, or in Wikipedia policy, is violated here, than please say specifically what legal or policy provision is involved. Simply saying "news media photo" is not a magic wand -- they news media get, and should get, no more (and no less) protection than any other content creator or publisher. DES ^(talk) 22:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
      • WP:FAIR#Examples of unacceptable use #5. Further, regardless of Wikipedia policy, use of a some random person's photo where there's nothing special about it and it just happens to depict the thing you want to show is a copyright violation. If DRV, IFD, and Wikipedia policies fail to recognize that, then they are hopelessly broken. One interesting read would be this IFD, which dealt with the same kind of image. It was from a book, not a newspaper, (see [2] for the original source) but it's the same class of photo. The arguments were basically the same that they are here. Someone went and asked a Wikipedia user who just happens to be an intellectual property lawyer about it. He said, among other things, "The use of this image is a clear copyright violation, and not a fair use. The fact that it is particularly useful to the illustration of an important article is irrelevant." Contrary to what we seem to think on Wikipedia, "just because I want to" isn't a fair use defense and consensus can't override copyright law. --BigΔT 23:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I remember that image, and the DRV on it. While I am not an IP lawyer, I am fairly well read in copyright law, and i think the lawyer's arguemnt there is wrong, or more exactly too broadly stated to apply to the particular case. In any case, your argument on that IfD (which exactly parallels your argument here) would convert "transformative use" from one of four factors to be considerd to an essential requirement of fair use. That is clearly not merely wrong but absurd. Well, I have made my point, we will see how others react. DES ^(talk) 14:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; violation of WP:NFCC #2 at least, maybe others as well. —Angr 20:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

WPARanormal

WPARanormal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was originally deleted for NN the article as it was originally reposted still failed this check however I do believe I fixed this issue after Pablothegreat85 flagged the article for that same short-coming Wantmy442 02:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• endorse this was deleted after an AFD in 06 and then recreated. The last version is short on multiple independent sources. Most of the sources are self referential and therefore invalid. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The AFD was unambiguous, and it's hard to believe the subject will ever be notable enough for an article. Shalom ^Hello 09:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, while one independent source is cited, it's a human interest piece in a local paper, and certainly isn't sufficient source material for an article. The rewrite doesn't seem to substantially address the concerns raised at AfD, and from the lack of sources available, I don't think those concerns can be addressed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have re looked at the article and realize now I only pointed out the notability on the talk page which has now been deleted but forgot to reference them in the article given a chance I would fix that.

The notability fixes would include reference to the fact that the hosts of the show have been mentioned in many books including but not limited to

• Asfar, Dan (2002). Ghost Stories of Michigan. Lone Pine Publishing. ISBN 1894877055.
• Asfar, Dan (2003). Ghost Stories of the Civil War. Ghost House. pp. 149–152. ISBN 1894877160.
• Asfar, Dan (2005). Ghost Hunters Of America. Ghost House. ISBN 1894877695. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help)
• Belanger, Jeff (2005). Encyclopedia Of Haunted Places. New Page Books. pp. 120–122. ISBN 1564147998. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help)
• Hunter, Gerald (2005). More Haunted Michigan. Lake Claremont Press. ISBN 1894877691.
• Godfrey, Linda (2006). Weird Michigan. Sterling. ISBN 1402739079.

I hope this is of some help. Wantmy442 19:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Few eyes but valid result. Sorry, Wantmy442, I know this is your first and thus far only contribution, but this really is just a directory entry for a local ghosthunting club. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Elvis Presley's favourite books

Elvis Presley's favourite books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The page is relevant to those who want to know more about a major entertainer who sold 1 billion records.

Imagine if you and I were in a Starbucks and I asked you what your all-time favourite CDs were. Do you think your list would tell me something about you? Of course it would.

At an interview, prospective employees often ask what your hobbies and interests are. Why do you think they do that? If you answered I’m a huge Bruce Lee fan and I love boxing, kung fu, and Zen meditation. Do you think that would say something about who you are?

Same with a list of books Elvis Presley liked. Elvis has an enormous fan base (probably not many Wikipedia moderators) and people want to know more about him, what made him tick, what made him so charismatic. This list of books tells so much about Elvis that I’m staggered that it is not considered to be good enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. I’m flummoxed, stumped puzzled and mystified.

If the religious right is behind Wikipedia’s refusal to post “Elvis Presley’s favourite books” then please forgive me for my impertinence. Bruce7777777 01:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse close - the AFD doesn't appear to have been a problem, was uniformly delete when closed, and the arguments seemed to follow policy with regards to indiscriminate lists and verifiability. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 01:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Clear consensus on the AFD. Two points about the nomination statement. First, Presley's favorite books might have been relevant if he were notable in the field of literature. However, his notability comes from the music, making discussion of his literature preferences rather irrelevant and indiscrimate. Second, the "religious right" has nothing to do with the deletion of this article, the arguments were based solely on the encyclopedic merit of the page, which was found severely wanting. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Valid afd, plenty of discussion, clear consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Elvis's favorite books - if this can even be verified; he did not continue past high school if I recall correctly - are indiscriminate information. The fact that they tell us something about his personality makes no difference. Shalom ^Hello 09:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, the arguments at the (unanimous) AfD certainly look like valid ones to me. Basically just a trivia list, might be suitable for a fansite, but not an encyclopedia. (And what's the "religious right" got anything to do with anything? If you think I'm religious or right-wing, you're already wrong twice...) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - There's no relevant policy cited to overturn this. It's not the article, it's just the topic isn't good. Wikipedia isn't the place to help with your job interview, or have a cup of coffee. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 13:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. WP:NOT Starbucks. I'm amazed we had to point that out. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Looks like it's back under a different title: Elvis presley spiritual books. Oh, and endorse deletion per everybody from the AFD onward. --Calton | Talk 04:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Persistent cuss: see User:Bruce7777777 and compare. --Calton | Talk 04:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Should that be put up for deletion (MfD?) as well, perhaps? Keeping content of deleted articles in userspace is frowned upon I believe. Tarc 13:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Bruce has apparently given up. -- Kesh 04:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - "I like it" and ramblings about right-wing religious conspiracies are not a very compelling arguments. Tarc 13:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Serious case of WP:ILIKEIT, despite the fact that Majorly and I have already told Bruce why the article is not suitable for Wikipedia. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion unless we want 1000s of these lists because we could likely create them for everyone "notable" by WP standards; and we could create their favorite songs, and if we did see them at Starbucks, perhaps their favorite take on whether the half-caf frappaccino beats the soy-latte... Carlossuarez46 21:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion of non-defining category. Wryspy 05:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)