Talk:Exploding animal
|
This article was nominated for deletion on December 20, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here. |
|
|
This article was re-nominated for deletion on 11 November, 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here. |
Should the article exist?
The template and category are funny, but as an article, it reflects a term best known inside Wikipedia itself- see 211 Google hits minus Wikipedia. CanadianCaesar 05:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Some of it is interesting, but the category is full of enthusiastically written but un-encyclopedic stories. For example, "Exploding snake" is just the regurgitation of a single news-wire story. —Michael Z. 2005-12-20 05:53 Z
- I've no problem with the subarticles; exploding snake may not be tremendously notable, but for the purposes of building upon a weird and wacky project started with exploding whale, a BBC story is notable enough for me. It's just exploding animal, itself, that bothers me. Where's the sources? CanadianCaesar 06:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Never mind. User:JJay found a source so I rewrote it. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 20:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Why does this article exist? We don't need an article on exploding animals that includes things like blowing up a whale with dynamite. We could include every animal if the only requirement is that is will blow up if near exploding dynamite. If there were animals capable of naturally exploding that did so on a fairly regular basis, that would be different but as it stands now this article doesn't really serve a purpose and ins't terribly encyclopedic. - Kuzain 08:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Bah! This category is hilarious! Why remove it? Why can't we ever have any fun at Wikipeidia! Kip the Dip 14:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't take more than a quick glance to see that this section has absolutely no place on Wikipedia. Please delete, it really drags down the quality of the site. (69.155.110.115 09:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC))
The only thing on this article that doesn't belong in an internet encyclopedia is the reference to kamakazi dolphins (there are no extant sources to confirm actual use of this application of military dolphins). This article is a interesting summary of a topic that includes relationships to human physiology, zoology and a bizarre but often used method of disposing of whale carcasses. The fact that the title doesn't get many hits on google is absolutely irrelevant. Wikipedia is not Google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.186.217 (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
See Also
I removed some content from the see also section because it was either already in the template at the bottom or was a red link. 71.31.154.237 16:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
An unfortunate phraseology
Given the subject of the article, I find this unfortunate:
"One of the most famous cases, well-known because of footage being spread across the Internet..."
Yes. Spread by the explosion, I assume?