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 back to userspace, as supported by the author and in keeping with a near-unanimous consensus that this doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. No need to drag this out any longer. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Piet Delport, who said:

“

The Colbert Report incident is already covered in more detail at Wikipedia in popular culture#Wikiality, and the remainder is simply frivolous self-reference.

”

--nkayesmith 00:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article has now been put in BJAODN. There should be no reason to extend this vote any further. --Piet Delport 14:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. A fine and useful article on a topic of some note and weight. It also is funny, although as its main author I am perhaps not qualified to judge that. john k 00:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Since the info is already covered (and I like that, I enjoy reading about that sort of thing) let's let this one go, WP generally strives not to get too self-referencial, for good reasons. Better that the few articles on WP itself get very long than the whole project get too meta Dina 00:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Sorry, it's a great idea, but it has to go. If it's any consolation, it will go on my sanctuary page.--Planetary 01:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I was figuring on moving it back to my user space if the consensus is for delete (which I assume it will be). But some day, we will look back on the couple of days in October 2006 when Elephant (wikipedia article) was on Wikipedia as a golden age. So, not enough keep votes? I say not one keep vote more. If it is marked to be deleted, we are enough to do our cause loss, and if to survive, the fewer keep votes, the greater share of honour. He that shill live this day, and see old age, will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbors, and say "Tomorrow is Elephant Day". Old men forget, yet all shall be forgot, but he'll remember, with advantages, what feats he did that day. And Elephant day shall ne'er go by, from this day to the ending of the world, but we in it shall be remembered. We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; for the to-day that votes to keep with me shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile, this day shall gentle his condition; And gentleman on wikipedia now a-bed, shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks that fought with us upon Elephant (wikipedia article) day! john k 01:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unencyclopedic, self-referential. Not notable or useful in itself Bwithh 01:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A Wikipedia article cannot, in and of itself, be notable enough to warrant yet another article. PKT 01:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Surely, even if you disagree that this particular article is such a case, one could envision the possibility that a wikipedia article is in and of itself notable enough to be its own article. john k 01:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, I can't envision such a circumstance. This isn't the forum for such a discussion, but if you can enlighten me pls. post on my talk page. PKT 15:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I agree it's funny (nothing wrong with that, see cow tipping for example), but redundant. I don't know how anyone would find this article, though; no other article links to it, not even the disambiguation page. -Amatulic 01:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I edited Elephant (disambiguation) to mention the article - somebody must have removed it. Presumably the Wikipedia culture article could be edited to add a link to it. And obvious several people have found it, presumably through recent changes. john k 01:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a toughie, but the self-reference is too self-serving. Better to appear self-effacing and self-regulating, and thus preserve our self-esteem. A note in Stephen Colbert might be appropriate -- or it might not. I think the litmus test has to be: If you asked a regular watcher of Colbert about him, would she include "wikiality" (without you prompting her) as part of his bio? I think not. This article is only of note to us because it is about our encyclopedia. (That's what I meant by "self-serving" above.) --N Shar 01:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: this AfD is not a question about the content being notable; the incident is already covered in more detail at the appropriate place (Wikipedia in popular culture#Wikiality). --Piet Delport 15:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as self-referential nonsense. The Stephen Colbert thing is already mentioned in several other places, all of which are more likely places one would look. Resolute 01:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per PKT. Montco 01:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The whole idea of this gives me a headache. Even if the Colbert/Wikipedia/Elephants thing were notable enough to warrant its own article (it's not), this would not be the right way to go about it. Self-reference and original research. -Elmer Clark 01:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• What the Hell? Delete this crap now. Why does this even need a nomination? The very three-word title is grounds enough for immediate expulsion.UberCryxic 01:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - Perhaps merge with one of The Colbert Report pages.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. You know Wikipedia has spun out of control when there's a Wikipedia article about another Wikipedia article. Seriously, you've GOT to be kidding me. The relevant info should be merged to the article about elephants (i.e. create a section about "History of this article" in "Elephant"). 129.98.197.86 01:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The material is clearly inappropriate for the Elephant article, as the history of a wikipedia article about elephants is not information which is notable to know about elephants. It would be a clear violation of Wikipedia:Avoid self references to discuss the wikipedia article about elephants in the wikipedia article about elephants. This is why we need an article about the wikipedia article about elephants, so that we can discuss this important material. john k 01:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Perhaps a page in the WP namespace would be appropriate? I agree that the material is important to Wikipedia users, which is what the Wikipedia namespace is for. --N Shar 01:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there is one already: Wikipedia:Wikiality and Other Tripling Elephants. --N Shar 01:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Stop wasting our time and SHAME on Colbert for inciting vandalism. L0b0t 01:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep our sense of humor about the whole thing. If Wikipedia ever becomes such a serious enterprise that this article is egregious for its frivolity, then we can all get on our high elephants about it. In the meantime, I found it more pleasurable to read than 99 44/100 % of Wikipedia articles; surely that counts for something? Michael K. Edwards 02:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try Encyclopedia Dramatica Bwithh 03:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You miss my point. This article, though somewhat "meta", is at least about things that happened in the real world. It's also a gentle reminder that, not long ago, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elephant&oldid=248857 was about par for WP in the absence of vandalism and PoV pushers. When the fancruft, vanity pages, and spam are gone, then it will be worth retiring the elephant that we can talk about.

• Strong Delete Wikipedia articles are getting Wikipedia articles these days? Stop it before it spreads. WP:Avoid self reference, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, then write an article about the AfD about the article about an article... Opabinia regalis 03:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per pretty much everyone advocating same. The information is better served by being in other articles (including those already cited) than this particular one. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, any newsworthy information belongs in the Colbert article (if anywhere}. The Wikipedia "Elephant" article is not notable in itself. NawlinWiki 04:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE. it boggles the mind to think how much time this person spent on something that they had to know would disappear. Maybe they can put it on their own personal website, if there are no copyright issues.OfficeGirl 04:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License" so yeah, they could pop it on another website. Craighennessey 23:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Bold text that suggests a vote of deletion. I love metahumor, but this belongs in WP:BJAODN or something like Uncyclopedia or Encyclopedia Dramatica. Too bad. Snurks^TC 05:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not everything stephen colbert makes a joke about automatically deserves an article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete ....seriously? A Wikipedia article about a Wikipedia article? No....no, no, no, no. Konman72 06:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - first, in the interest of full disclosure, I should say that the quote at the top is from the original prodder, User:Piet Delport, not me. I merely posted a prod2 in agreement. That said, I still agree with the sentiment. While I'm a big fan of the Colbert Report (in fact, I'm watching it right now, as I type), the bit in question was a throwaway segment on one episode. Hardly notable, unless you're overly interested in Wikipedia. While I do not automatically object to the idea of Wikipedia article about a Wikipedia article, it would have to be in a far, far, FAR more notable context than this. Xtifr _tälk 07:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per Avoid self-references Jpe|ob 07:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. You've got to be kidding me- an article about an article in Wikipedia! Eliminate this article. No self referencing. If you have to, merge this into a page about Wikipedia pranks. Sr13 08:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and place in BJAODN. Good for a chuckle, but this violates several guidelines as pointed out above. Andrew Levine 08:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Quick (not Speedy) Delete and Close AfD before it becomes a circus. Danny Lilithborne 09:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's OK as a joke but if we go down this road the project will become encrusted with this sort of thing. BTLizard 09:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it so hard Colbert feels it.An article about a Wikipedia article? TIME PARADOX. Save it in some form, though-very funny. Either put it in Bad Jokes or merge it with the Colbert article-not notable enough for its own. Umlautbob 10:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've been watching this whole charade, and been wondering... what policies does the article not abide by? WP:ASR isn't the problem, if you read the actual wording of it, and WP:V is definitely satisfied. The only problem I can see is a notability concern. I agree it should probably go, but there doesn't seem to be any Wikipedia policy that justifies the deletion. It might be there and I'm missing it, of course. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 10:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Self-reference. *drew 11:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although articles about Wikipedia's notable aspects don't necessarily violate the relevant self-reference guidelines, I don't think every Steven Colbert joke deserves its own article, even if it does get mentioned in a newspaper article or two. I think this might deserve a paragraph or two in another article, (such as Wikiality but not its own article. (So "non-notable/not encyclopedic/comedy cruft," I guess). TheronJ 13:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and I guess if Colbert talks about this article on his show then we'll need an article about this article too? Recury 13:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course, but let's cross the Elephant (wikipedia article) (wikipedia article) bridge when we come to it. john k 16:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/BJAODN. --Piet Delport 13:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; pointless self reference & really only exists to cover a one-off Colbert joke.--Isotope23 14:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wikipedia:Elephant, label it as an essay, and keep it. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with related Colbert article.Gobawoo 16:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or move to Wikipedia namespace. Wikipedia should not have articles about its own articles, no matter how famous they become. Wikipedia internals have no place in main namespace. JIP | Talk 16:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  What about Wikipedia, Wikipedia in popular culture, List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia, Congressional staffer edits to Wikipedia? Also see Category:Wikipedia people. john k 16:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would just like to note that, as others have said, the potential problem with this article is not that it violates WP:ASR. Mentioning this material in the Elephant article would of course be a self reference problem. But a separate article is not. A wikipedia article about wikipedia is allowed to talk about wikipedia. The question, then, is whether the wikipedia article on elephants is a notable topic for an encyclopedia article. It seems to me that, what with the Colbert reference and its easy verifiability, it is at least as notable as, say, the Empire of Atlantium, which constantly survives deletion votes, or, say, Victreebel. There is an unfair prejudice against wikipedia-related fancruft! john k 16:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An admin invoking WP:POKEMON? Tsk tsk... -Elmer Clark 18:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right, that was pretty lazy on my part. john k 18:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have to say... this article will obviously be deleted, and it should be, but it's an awesome concept. So very meta! -- Kicking222 17:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete BJAODN maybe, but this is not appropreate for the mainspace. As isotope put it, a self-reference to a lone colbert joke. Kevin_b_er 17:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Shadow1 (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I love Colbert, but this is an encyclopedia first and foremost. EVula 19:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Awesome. --- RockMFR 21:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge content to Elephant (Wikipedia article) (Wikipedia article). --tjstrf Now on editor review! 22:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has this article attained sufficient notability to be the subject of a wikipedia article? That would be exciting, as it might suggest that I have attained sufficient notability for a wikipedia article to be written about me, as the author of said notable article. I think, however, that it would be confusing to have a wikipedia article about another wikipedia article that no longer exists. If Elephant (wikipedia article) (wikipedia article) is to be created, I think it can only be in a context where this article is kept, or I fear its notability would be questionable, and it might itself be subject to deletion. john k 22:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Originally authored by John Kenney (Wikipedia user), Elephant (Wikipedia article) was an encyclopedia entry which described notable information about the history of the Wikipedia article on elephants. Deleted in mid-October, 2006 following the results of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elephant (wikipedia article) (Wikipedia articles for deletion debate), it has since been recreated at User:John Kenney/Elephant (Wikipedia article) (Wikipedia user subpage)" --tjstrf Now on editor review! 22:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, there should be some kind of policy that says you cant create an article about an existing article.--Taida 23:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy would like a word with you. In other words, if it were truly the main subject of multiple media coverages, an article may in fact merit an article about itself. Probably not in this case though. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 23:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Colbert joke became a notable Wikipedia event. As such, the article about the joke should remain. WVhybrid 23:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The event is indeed notable, and it's already covered in more detail in more appropriate articles. --Piet Delport 14:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Super strøng nude høuse of wacky peøple keep. How can this article be denied? It meets WP:V; see, here it is! It meets WP:N; just look at all the people above me talking about it! I think this entire thing is nothing more than a blatant bad faith attempt by Democratic operatives at smearing the proud symbol of the Republican Party mere weeks before an important election. Maybe I'll just go slap a ((db-spam)) tag on Donkey; see if I don't! You might have gotten away with this, if it wasn't for us meddling kids! Signed, Rear Admiral Lionel "Knuckles" Ellis (Mrs.) --Aaron 23:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I dont think it passes WP:V. While a lot of non-trivial sources have commented on Stephen Colbert encouraging people to edit the article, I cannot find a single non-trivial source focussed on the Elephant article itself. As such, the comments on this gag belong where they already are, on the pages for Colbert and for Wikipedia in the media. Resolute 04:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is perfectly verified, and I've never heard the use of the term "non-trivial source." The term we use is "reliable source," and surely the wikipedia history of the article Elephant qualifies as a reliable source on the wikipedia article about elephants. And the elephant article was certainly mentioned in mainstream media, just only in context of the elephant remark. I think the reason for deletion you are looking for is notability. john k 10:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's already in BJAODN. Too funny. --Húsönd 01:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I know this is going to get deleted, but I would like to preserve it by moving it back to its original location in my user space. I suppose I could just undelete if I wait too long, move it, and then redelete the page in the main space, but I suppose it'd be easier if I knew ahead of time when that would happen. When's the deadline on the deletion? john k 02:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever an admin closes it, I don't think there's a "set time." You might want to consider closing it yourself so that you can be sure it gets moved, or you could just copy it -- do you really care about preserving the history? I don't think it matters if it's to a user page...-Elmer Clark 02:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:TRUTHINESS Anomo 02:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  This is an unfair accusation. The article is not merely verifiable, it is verified, in that it has footnotes and cites the source for all information provided. It is perfectly truthy. john k 03:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete and protect from re-creation, self-referential and unverifiable with reliable sources. This article exists only to draw Colbert-related vandalism toward it. I strongly urge the closing admin to disregard the simple "votes" in this AfD discussion ("awesome" is not a reason to keep an article, for instance). AfD is not a vote. --Coredesat 05:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment you do realize those were mostly joke votes, right? --tjstrf Now on editor review! 05:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article exists because, back in August, people were trying to get the stuff about Colbert into the article Elephant. I determined that while this material was inappropriate for the article on elephants, it would be perfectly appropriate for an article on the wikipedia article "Elephant," and created such a page in my user space to do that very thing. Then, a few days ago, I moved it into main name space, judging that the time was right for a wikipedia article about a wikipedia article. Sadly, I seem to have been mistaken. Also, the article, while self-referential, does not violate WP:ASR, in that it is an article about wikipedia, which is allowed to talk about wikipedia. It is not unverifiable, either, in that the Colbert material is referenced to news sources, and the material about the article itself can be checked against the Elephant article history, which is surely a reliable source for the history of the Elephant article, I think. The only potential problem, as far as I can tell, is notability, or the question of whether the Colbert incident (which is apparently considered to be notable) should be described in an article about the wikipedia article on elephants. And isn't protecting from recreation a bit strong? john k 10:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If Elephant (wikipedia article) (wikipedia article) is created, it should obviously say, "The number of Elephant articles on Wikipedia has tripled in the last six months." :) Xtifr _tälk 09:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Not necessarily, how long have Indian elephant, African elephant, Crushing by elephant, etc. existed for? --tjstrf Now on editor review! 09:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that such a claim would be untrue, and simply a sneaky way of trying to get Mr. Colbert's evil, wikipedia-hating falsitude into wikipedia through the back door. Only verifiable, well-sourced information about elephant articles on wikipedia should be included in this article, not "hilarious" jokes inspired by known wikipedia-hater Stephen Colbert. A true piece of information, I believe, is that the number of elephants editing wikipedia has tripled in the last 6 months, but I'm not sure that comes under the purview of this article. john k 10:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a first choice, or, if this somehow survives AfD, strong merge to relevant articles anyway. I'm usually pro-fancruft, pro-self-reference, but heck, this article pushed me wayyyyyyyyyy past the edge. There's no excuse for this article; its contents have already been covered to adequate detail in other articles, and in the Post. I enjoyed reading the Signpost bit, but sure don't think this is notable enough for an article. We simply don't need this; All we need is a reference in Colbert and WP critique/history articles, and whatever self-referential documentation we have done. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The material on the early history of the article is not covered anywhere else. Where else can we learn that in 2001 the article described elephants as a "Large, grayish mammal"? john k 10:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I think most people are voting this be deleted because of the precedant it sets. All other instances of articles about articles are about the incident, not the article itself. As I humourously attempted to point out above, allowing articles of the format Pagename (Wikipedia article) is essentially opening the door to a system of endless self-reference, as Pagename (Wikipedia article) is itself a Wikipedia article, and hence a suitable subject for another article, which could then be the subject of a 4th article... This idea might make an excellent joke on uncyclopedia, but on Wikipedia it is probably not the best plan. Though if someone wanted to write an "Editors of "Elephant" (Wikipedia article) (Wikipedia article) in the news" (Wikipedia article), I'd love to see it. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 10:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Many people are voting on dubious bases like verifiability. And I don't think that avoid self reference actually deals with this issue - articles that are explicitly about wikipedia subjects are allowed to mention wikipedia. As I've said several times, I think the only clear issue here is notability. It seems to me that, having been discussed in various mainstream media outlets, the wikipedia article on elephants is arguably notable enough to have its own article. Certainly the information about Colbert has been judged to be notable for discussion in other wikipedia articles. This article, then, provides more context on the elephant article which was Mr. Colbert's target, thus allowing people to more fully understand its history before the Colbert incident, for instance. Now, this is arguably ridiculous (clearly everyone else seems to think so, and if I am honest with myself, I suspect that I think so as well), and if we want to have a policy banning wikipedia articles on wikipedia articles, that might be a prudent idea, and this deletion discussion might provide a good precedent for enacting one, but there is, so far as I am aware, no specific rule of that nature at the moment, just the normal notability requirement. As to Uncyclopedia, it sucks. A few days of this article being on actual wikipedia is far more amusing than just about anything on Uncyclopedia, which is almost universally prevented from being funny by the "too many cooks spoil the broth" problem. john k 12:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not questioning whether this article is verifiable or not (it probably is), or if the topic is notable (based on news visibility, it probably is). All I'm contesting is whether we need an article of its own on this topic, and I'm not citing any other criteria in this debate but common sense. My view is that this is mergeable material at best. Not every newsworthy incident is worth a new article. I'm definitely against deleting articles by policy-pounding, but I'm also against keeping articles just because they satisfy some criteria. If the article sparks "Who gives darn in 100 years? Isn't this really insignificant?" reaction, we should really consider the need of the article and think that it's probably mergeworthy. Let's compare: Seigenthaler case essentially sparked the big media debate about Wikipedia's reliability and editor responsibility, and contributed to the development of WP:BLP policy. That was a major news event that had implications. Elephant case was a minor segment where some random... TV guy or something... tells folks to vandalise Wikipedia and Wikipedia takes normal precautions. In the end of the day, nothing new has happened, except that now we have an injoke. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. I had no expectation that this article would survive for very long on its own, and most of my comments here have been more playing the devil's advocate than anything. I'm satisfied that there's a consensus to delete. Would it be acceptable if I move the page back to my user space and then delete the redirect? john k 15:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: prehaps such be renamed/merged to Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense:Elephant (Wikipedia article) and added to this category Category:Wikipedia_Bad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense,there are april fools jokes among others mention also there is this Wikipedia:Wikiality_and_Other_Tripling_Elephants --Sirex98 16:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & #REDIRECT Just had skimmed through the long list of votes and comments earlier, Feel a little embarrassed I didn't notice Piet Delport comment above that it was already in BJAODN :),I have to say the article is funny but this is an encyclopedia, I'm not against humor which why I believe it should be locked & redirected to it's BJAODN entree, for us to keep it is saying that in the future we sanction such articles as being valid, People can still read it, just in another location. It wouldn't be proper as a standalone article. ~~=Sirex98= 12:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  It's already been added here. --Piet Delport 02:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete but giggle I think the sentence "Elephant" is a Wikipedia article about elephants. is deeply funny. I urge the community to keep this somewhere, not in the mainspace of course. But I think it's a refreshing meta-comment. Pascal.Tesson 22:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is so fucking awesome, I can't believe its been on Wikipedia for months. - Hahnchen 01:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, for less than a day, when you exclude the time spent on John Kenney's user page. --Piet Delport 02:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, that's a crying shame. - Hahnchen 02:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  It has now been on wikipedia main space for approximately 5 days. After 1 day, a proposed deletion notice was put up. I took that off a day later than that, and somebody almost immediately nominated it for proper deletion. It has been up for deletion for three days now. Wikipedia springs into action fairly quickly on such matters, it would seem. john k 03:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahahahahahhahaha! Sorry, delete. oTHErONE _(Contribs) 11:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As much as I love the hilarious self-reference, delete. WP:POINT at its finest. - Sikon 17:57, 22 October 2006 (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.