Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seeing pink elephants

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 as encyclopedic. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing pink elephants[edit]

As per WP:NOT. This article is a dictionary definition and a list of occurrences of the phrase in popular culture. Since this term could be applied to either alcoholic hallucinosis, or delirium tremens, this article can't just be changed to a redirect. Any verifiable material on the medical conditions would be encyclopaedic topics, but would belong in those articles, not under an ill-defined slang term. I can't find any reliable sources that discuss this phrase, so I don't think Wikipedia should have an article on it. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tim Vickers (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tim Vickers (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Expand, explain, and keep. DGG (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expand with what DGG? Material on alcoholic hallucinosis, or material on delirium tremens? Or do you think the article could be improved by adding more examples of when this phrase has been used in popular culture? The core problem is that I can't find any reliable sources that specifically discuss the phrase "Seeing pink elephants", so I don't see how we could expand the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no redirect. This is WP:TRIVIA. Big time. If the page can be expanded with actual academic content (e.g. why pink elephants as opposed to blue pandas, the influence of pink elephants on the perception of drunkenness in 1920s America etc etc) we can talk again. JFW | T@lk 05:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with explanations of the phrase in popular culture. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 08:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find some sources that discuss the use of this phrase in popular culture? Without any sources that do this, your suggestion is not possible. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are already some sources and useful content in the current page. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 07:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a definition, the origin of the phrase, and some documented examples. What is lacking is any sources that discuss this phrase as their subject. You can't write an encyclopedia article without sources that discuss the subject - examples are insufficient since all you are doing by adding these is creating a list. Imagine writing an article on "You can't take it with you" or "Dead as a doornail", you could define the phrase, show when it was first used, and list some examples, but they would be just as unsatisfactory as this article on "Seeing pink elephants" since there is nothing more that you could say. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Explanation is that is is part of a colourful metaphor coined by Jack London in 1913. If the other half of the mataphor had passed into general use instead, we would be seeing blue mice ! Gandalf61 (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that we should keep this article because you like the subject and find it interesting? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<sigh> Obviously not, and please don't try to put words into my mouth. We should keep this article because it is encyclopedic and not just a dictionary definition. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is an encyclopedic topic, there must be some reliable sources that discuss this phrase. Could you find some and add them to the article? Unfortunately I've looked and can't find any. At present the only reference is from a dictionary, which doesn't help the problem that this article seems no more than a dictionary definition. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find a full encyclopedia article in the topic. I just added the relevant information to John Barleycorn (novel), so the search term can be redirected there. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the disambiguation page Pink elephant might be the best redirect target. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a curious meme with a long and interesting history, independent of London's novel. If more sources are needed, well, Google search for the phrase "pink elephants" returns this article as one of the top results; it's not scholarly, but it's certainly thorough (there are numerous historical images) and it strikes me as reliable. If you need scholarly sources, try Archer Taylor, "Pink Elephants Again", Journal of American Folklore 67 (1954): 238 -- a peer-reviewed article that asks, "Is the English phrase connected with the Hindu god Ganesh?" If other encyclopedias don't have an article on it, I'd say that's a strength of Wikipedia, not a reason to delete the article. Jd4v15 (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please use any sources to improve the article, but at present all the sources provide is the etymology and some examples. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jd4v15. Haukur (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a single phrase from Jack London does not make this notable. There is very little evidence that the phrase has been used since 1913, and will ever be more than a dictionary definition --T-rex 18:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable topics with importance in the real world), What Wikipedia is, and due to active effort to improve this referenced article about a recognizable topic. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this article could be improved, could you outline what else it could contain apart from defining the phrase and its etymology, and giving a list of times when it has been used? What is it that you think could be added to improve the article and move it past a dictionary definition and list of trivia? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:57, 6 July 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.