Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White elephant

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. per WP:SNOW. Sandstein 16:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White elephant

Dicdef and list of trivia. It's original research to say that any of the objects listed actually are white elephants isn't it? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The "Examples of notable alleged white elephants" list is largely referenced, that and the 'alleged' bit make it somewhat clear that we are not actually saying they are, as synthesis or original research. A similar but far shorter and less referenced article would be Boondoggle (project).Synchronism (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see any way in which deleting this article would make for a better encyclopedia; some of the more spurious entries could be cleared up or cited, sure, but deletion? Shimgray | talk | 22:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Sych's and Shimg's comments. Most of the issues can be addressed on the talk page, as they have been in the past. Seems very extreme to send to AFD as a first step for this user to take with this article. I support a Speedy Keep in this case. - BillCJ (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "White elephant" is a dictionary term, but it also refers to a recognizable and sourceable class of projects that are individually noteworthy, often mainly for their failures. This article describes the phenomenon with a well-sourced list of notable examples. I don't think that the dictionary could handle this information well, and I agree with Synchronism that its deletion would not improve the project. Will Beback talk 01:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A sourced article is a rare find indeed. Essentially, this is a list of projects that have been described by others as a colossal waste of money. Boondoggle, white elephant, whatever one wants to call it there is ample literature on the subject of waste. Mandsford (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Speedy keep, if nobody objects. A good example of how to do an article like this. DGG (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The background at least is encyclopedic content. The list is trivia, and should be spun out to a standalone list to avoid overpowering the article. Or deleted for all I care. I see no reason for a speedy keep. Taemyr (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I checked two of the items in the list and they did have sources which seemed sufficiently reliable. Also, the concept of "white elephant" is something WP should have an article on (some more in a history section would be good). Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if I may... I agree that this article does have encyclopedic content, although the list is questionable.
Keep The article could be improved a lot, but the topic is encyclopedic. Allmost all of the examples are supported by sources which explicitly call them a 'white elephant' so there's no original research. Nick-D (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Will Beback. This article goes well beyond dicdef. JamesMLane t c 04:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is about the concept of the white elephant rather than about the phrase, so is not a dicdef.--Michig (talk) 07:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No real reason to delete on the ground of being a dicdef. It goes beyond that by explaining the historic context of the term, and then provides some examples, a rational approach to an assuredly encyclopedic topic.Synchronism (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list could be split out into a standalone list as it tends to dominate the article, but there is no doubt in my mind that this is an entirely appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article and this one is at least referenced which is more than can be said for many other articles in the wiki. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is not a dicdef, and has references to back up content, passing WP:V. SNOW? --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's large and white and picking up speed as it moves downhill, is it a white elephant or a snowball... I'm not hanging around to find out. Mandsford (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2009 (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.