Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Elephant House (3rd nomination)


 * 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   keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The Elephant House
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a procedural listing based on a decision at DRV to relist this for further discussion. As the DRV closer I take no position in this debate. Spartaz Humbug! 05:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, copying from the Uzma Gamal's comment at the deletion review, I see some reliable sources:
 * Probably the relist was correct, but I can't see a different outcome for this. Cavarrone (talk) 07:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably the relist was correct, but I can't see a different outcome for this. Cavarrone (talk) 07:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep, there seem to be more than enough reliable sources named by Cavarrone and listed in the article. The odd fact that the article itself is sprinkled with possibly unreliable sources does not change this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Just because it makes the news does not make it notable. Being written about in a news paper happens every day for many man made things (same story regurgitated over and over). And the fact as seen here the names is used by a  famous sculpture - that is not just a lawn ornament.Moxy (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * When something makes the news, over the course of 4 years in succession, in different newspapers, it is hard to treat as a flash-in-the-pan or nine-days-wonder, which Wikipedia rightly shuns. Art available for the public to view, which attracts comment in multiple reliable sources over the years, clearly passes our WP:GNG test. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Its called "An Elephant in the Room" not "The Elephant House" - cant believe not one person here has even looked at this fact. As for WP:GNG -  "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion.Moxy (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - this topic passes WP:GNG, in part per the sources listed above by User:Cavarrone, and also per some in the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient sourcing to pass WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - This topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Therefore, it passes WP:GNG and should be kept.   &#x0288;  u coxn \ talk 01:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable, per Chiswick Chap. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough sources have been found proving it is notable. The closing administrator did the right thing last time by ignoring that one editor who constantly insist that you need hordes of sources, that two aren't enough.   D r e a m Focus  08:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.