Rumours not encyclopedic Lee Hunter 15:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: some items in the article are sourced; perhaps they could be merged with Elvis Presley if not already mentioned there? —Wahoofive (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Caution. this article is part of a single issue agenda by User:Onefortyone to seed the Elvis Presley article and Wikipedia with misleading content in order to trigger Google keyword searches pointing readers to books by David Bret. Wyss 17:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is what this user constantly claims in order to denigrate my contributions. As everybody can see, I frequently cite my sources. Administrator Ed Poor, who knows that there is an edit war going on, has recommended to create a new article on the gay sex rumors about Elvis Presley. See Talk:Elvis Presley. As it is a fact that these claims exist, I think it is a fair compromise to exclude this material from the main article and put it in this new article. Perhaps an administrator could add a link to this new page in the "Relationships" section of the article on Elvis Presley which is still protected. Thank you. Onefortyone 17:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to something like Elvis Presely and homosexuality, but keep, seems well sourced. Sdedeo 20:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant keep, reluctant because I'm opposed to the continual assumption that every famous male is gay. However as noted above this does appear to be well-sourced although I personally would delete the Guardian quote as being taken out of context since it, in turn, references a scandal mag and therefore weakens the thesis. Also the last paragraph, despite the sourcing, needs to be recast for NPOV. I agree it needs a better title. 23skidoo 00:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Most of the articles seems to be innuendo with little in the way of fact. Capitalistroadster 01:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is important to discourage people like Onefortyone from using Wikipedia for financial gain by improving Google results. (129.241.134.241 01:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia should not be used to spread rumors. --rob 02:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per rob abakharev 05:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The 'sources' for this are a scandal mag, an unpublished manuscript, the National Enquirer, and a book by an author who is "widely criticised for being careless and even inventive with basic facts". Given the National Enquirer being a source can we expect an article on Living on the moon rumours about Elvis Presley? If the article is being used, as alleged above, to promote a book, then it skirts dangerously close to being personal research. The article is inherently POV, and would most likely remain so even with a name change. Given that the article cites its very weak sources at length, I see nothing to suggest that it could be expanded further with the addition of new information. I see nothing to suggest it could ever be an encylopaedic article. KeithD (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]