Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploding animal

Exploding animal

Nonsense, original research, whatever you want to call it, it's garbage. -- Jbamb 06:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Delete per above. Billbrock 06:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
Keep. We need this for the whole exploding animal series. -- JJay 11:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we? I think the template works just fine- but if someone could prove Dave Barry made some published musings about it, beyond exploding whales, I'd switch to keep. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 12:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He has a chapter on it in Dave Barry Talks Back. Not sure if the link will work, but you can check out the book at Amazon [1]. -- JJay 14:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But with reservations! Sorry to be a citation nazi, but this article needs to cite its sources. If Dave Barry's book can be used as a legitimate reference, please cite it in the article (though not as a blanket reference; if anyone has read the book, he or she should cite specific page numbers). I also think that various related articles (the shorter ones at least) could be merged into this article—that might give it more legitimacy. -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 17:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Special thanks to JJay and Perodicticus. I was able to rewrite it. Verifiable, referenced to a published work. Reccomend not merging it with anything, because the exploding animal category is just so fun. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 20:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I took the liberty of wiki-formatting the reference. It was not quite what I had in mind, but you certainly fulfilled the spirit of my request! Still, the book itself would be a better source, but I won't belabor the point. Also, the article is rather short and probably should be marked as a stub, though of what kind I have no earthly idea—perhaps a new Detonable fauna-stub? (Not serious on that last point.) -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 21:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  (Of course, all this may be rendered academic if the final consensus is to delete.)
  -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 21:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a central article for all the topics which will no doubt be expanded into a full summary article. violet/riga (t) 21:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I concede defeat. The first sentence in the next book i read will become a wikipedia article. --Ezeu 21:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is already a category which covers this just fine. D e nni ☯ 02:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]