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 template which covers this adequately. D e nni ☯ 02:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
weak Delete - is a bit from one humorist really enough to hang an article on? Is the idea actually notable??? Not every gag idea is an article! The cites seem tenuous, not all are related to this topic. Also, perhaps the part about dynamiting whales just belongs in the whale article and the rest under WP:BJAODN??