Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elephant in the room

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was Snow Keep (non-admin closure) as having more cultural significance and potential than just a Dictdef. Jclemens (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant in the room

Dicdef and list of uses in film and TV. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep- I found this article helpful; that is reason enough not to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.184.238.224 (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC) keep- this is longer than a dicdef, is mentioned in multiple reliable sources (which counteracts any lack of depth of sources which most phrases would have) and AfD is not for cleanup. An article could be made from this, if people aren't happy with how it is already, which discusses he history of the phrase and so on. We have a very large category of phrases [1] including numerous subcategories. I don't mean 'other stuff exists' but that they are a valid type of article. You can see that a longer article can be made about a phrase too, in the article Hail Satan. Sticky Parkin 23:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a phrase used in a wide variety of contexts, article suitable for expansion, sourcing should be no problem. The list of uses is in fact relevant content too, but there's a lot more to say besides that. DGG (talk) 04:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Used extensivly on the E Series of QI. Lugnuts (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I'm not keen on articles about words or phrases, this article is (or should be) about the Elephant in the room concept rather than just the phrase, so if developed further would go beyond a dictionary definition, if it hasn't already. The first page of google results give these [2], [3], which suggest there's plenty on which to base an article.--Michig (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I share Hammer's concerns about the poor state of the article at the moment, and I'm not at all sure Lugnuts' argument is really a very persuasive keep rationale. But I think the other keep voters are right: this is a phrase on which we could have a decent encyclopedic article, and there will be plenty of sources out there. AndyJones (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody wrote a Wikipedia article about my mother-in-law? All seriousness aside: Keep due its significance within the vernacular. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge as below to Elephant. notable, and easily integrated as part of cultural significance in section of larger article. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Elephant. Wikipedia is not a usage guide or dictionary. This seems to be just some assorted metaphorical references to elephants and so would best form a section of the main article. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore it. Isn't that what we do with elephants in our respective rooms? Or was that an 800 lb gorilla? Seriously, I'm Switzerland on this one. Shouldn't be deleted though, it could land somewhere, either in Elephant (which could anger the "Elephant" writers, or as it's own article, nicely stuffed away and not bothering anyone. An elephant in the room having a nice cup of tea.) Keeper ǀ 76 15:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.