Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploding animal
Nonsense, original research, whatever you want to call it, it's garbage. -- Jbamb 06:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Original research. As I was just saying on the talk page, 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. 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)
- Delete per above. Billbrock 06:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Didn't Dave Barry start the whole 'exploding animal' meme? I think there could be a place for a 'list of animals known to have exploded', but this article as written now doesn't make a lot of sense. Perodicticus 09:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Someone already tried making two lists and both got deleted and redirected for being unmaintainable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of animals that explode. As for Dave Barry, I think he wrote specifically on the exploding whale. CanadianCaesar 10:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. We need this for the whole exploding animal series. -- JJay 11:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Do we? I think the template works just fine- but if someone could prove Dave Barry made some published musings about it I'd switch to keep. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 12:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)