Deletion of Elephant (wikipedia article)

Comment: fails |WP:TRUTHINESS
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: and '''place in |BJAODN'''. Good for a chuckle, but this violates several guidelines as pointed out above
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Silly Things (WP:BJAODN)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: I've been watching this whole charade, and been wondering... what policies does the article not abide by?   isn't the problem, if you read the actual wording of it, and  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. &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:ASR||WP:V)

Comment: How can this article be denied? It meets ; see, Elephant|here it is! It meets ; 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 Party (United States)|Democratic operatives at smearing the proud symbol of the Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party mere weeks before an important election. Maybe I'll just go slap a {{tl|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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N)

Comment: content to |''Elephant (Wikipedia article)'' (Wikipedia article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Silly Things (WP:BJAODN)

Comment: I would just like to note that, as others have said, the potential problem with this article is ''not'' that it violates . 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:ASR)

Comment: 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.  Wikipedia:Avoid self-references|Self-reference and |original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)