Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elvis Presley diet

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Elvis Presley diet

Neologism. --W(t) 02:35, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

Delete. Elvis never designed this to be a diet where others copy it, and calling it that is original research. Harro5 02:38, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Yet another food/addiction/battery related article created by an Andrew Lin sockpuppet. Delete with prejudice. - Jersyko 02:45, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If Elvis' diet is of any interest, it is within his article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what a dangerous diet. Revolución 04:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and inform those responsible that this article has left the building. — Phil Welch 05:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 100,000 calories a day? Silly! He'd probably have needed a sucrose drip to absorb that much. The term "Elvis Presley diet" does sometimes crop up as an ironic figure of speech to describe the eating habits of someone with a liking with junk food, but not very often. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:50, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Classic example of the fact that wikipedia has so many articles now that people who want to create a new one REALLY have to stretch. - DavidWBrooks 13:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Oh really? So where's the article on the Battle of Otterburn? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Elvis Presley#Trivia. RickK 18:44, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
- You can't redirect to subheaders of pages. A redirect to Elvis Presley would be ok by me though. --W(t) 23:48, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
  - I know, but it would be in place for the time when the redirect to subheaders actually works. RickK 22:25, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
    - I don't think they ever will, at least not for the http+html wikipedia. It just isn't technically feasible. --W(t) 05:54, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
      - Nonsense, of course it's technically feasible. The link Elvis Presley#Trivia goes straight to the trivia section, so a redirect can too. It just hasn't been written that way yet. sjorford →•← 15:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Redirects are handled server-side, link-clicking is client-side. Anchor jumping has to be done client side. The only way to make redirects happen client side is to use html meta redirects, which would significantly slow down access and increase server load. --W(t) 00:11, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
        Yeah, I sort of realised the catch after I posted...It is still technically possible anyway (cross-project redirects worked that way, before they were turned off). sjorford →•← 17:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If a grapefruit diet consists of eating grapefruits... ah, never mind. Delete. R adiant _* 10:42, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.