Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploding donkey

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Exploding animal. Nomination withdrawn with intent to merge, so closing early. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding donkey

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's cute to have a bunch of articles on exploding animals, but this one shouldn't be one of them. That it was a donkey (or mule) to deliver a bomb in one or more cases does not make the subject "exploding donkey (or mule)" notable, and the complete lack of sources doesn't help. Note to possible exploding-donkey (or mule) rescuer: adding newspaper articles that mention that a donkey blew up a checkpoint does not help: we need solid sources that provide in-depth discussion of the donkey (or mule) as a bomb-delivery mechanism, including analysis of its history, the culture of training donkeys (or mules) for explosive purposes, the bond between handler and donkey (or mule), and yes, a controversy section. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Exploding animal as it would be redundant otherwise.--WngLdr34 (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as described. Seems like a logical choice for an article with a few marginal hits in reliable sources, but not enough to sustain an article on its own. See also the AFD from today on Exploding sheep. --Jayron32 19:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above and common sense. Just because something happened to explode once doesn't mean it's a notable concept; although it might warrant a mention as part of a broader article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, I am going to take all this as a hint and merge the thing. Julian, care to close this as withdrawn? I invoke boldness--actually, you know what, I'm going to wait until you tell me that it's not too early to close this. I'll be here with my finger on the trigger, ready to blow this donkey (or mule!) into Exploding animal. Drmies (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.