Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploding animal (4th nomination)

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 keep. –MuZemike 22:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding animal

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

This article is a textbook example of WP:SYNTH. None of the sources establish that the concept of "exploding animals" has any notability in its own right; instead, this is a mish-mash of a variety of news reports which have been unified under one topic only because Wikipedians said so. The history shows that a lot of other "Exploding..." articles were redirected here; I don't see how putting a bunch of garbage all in one place makes it any more notable than before. Most individual incidents violate WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SBST. *** Crotalus *** 19:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Some of this might be individually notable, but not as a subject area. If there were a general cause, that would be notable. If there were a technical name for "exploding animal" where all the instances had a common cause or theme, that might be notable. It's kind of too bad though, this is useful... uh... kind of. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a collection of various things. In some cases there was no explosion, in others something else besides the animal exploded. Jaque Hammer (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The reference to WP:SYNTH is badly wrong: it says Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources but here there is no original conclusion here. There is no original research. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SBST would be appropriate if we were discussing articles of each episode, but they do not refer to article content. In fact it was exactly for these reasons that several articles were merged into this one. Actually, unifying sources content under a common denominator because Wikipedians say so is exactly our job in making an encyclopedia; that the nom thinks it's "garbage" only means he doesn't like it, but well, this has never been a good reason to delete stuff. It could be renamed as List of exploding animals however, but this is an editorial decision. --Cyclopia ^talk 02:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: I concur with Cyclopia, this is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than original research or synthesis. The fact that prior deletion requests resulted in a speedy keep the last two times this was proposed should have clued in the nominator. -- Marcika (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Jaque Hammer. Neutrality^talk 04:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~: I don't see a WP:SYNTH issue here. The introduction and content makes clear there are a variety of causes/sources and there is a common thread. The article does need improvements so it wouldn't be an incredible loss but the preferable solution would be to improve the article. RevelationDirect (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Normally multiple nominations for deletions occur because the same issue is recurring and there is no clear consensus. Now that I look at the history, this article survives the 2nd nomination for having original research, the 3rd nomination is non-constructive and involves merging articles and this one is sythesizing because too many articles were merged? I've never thought an article was being persecuted before, but this is looking a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per the previous 2 deletion attempts, which are unanimous apart from the nom. Occuli (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cfd: Category:Exploding animals, has also been nominated for deletion by another editor. If you would like to participate in that separate discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article seems to establish three different kinds of explosion (1) due to the build up of gas from decomposition after death (2) due to humans attaching and detonating explosives (3) a species of ant which can detonate itself. Additionally there are insects which can release a jet of chemicals explosively as a defence mechanism without harming themselves. While the various cases are disparate, there is no justification for deleting an omnibus article covering them all. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inherently encyclopedic. Good use of WP:RS secondary sources that satisfy WP:V. The article could be expanded greatly, to include discussion from a wealth of additional secondary sources that deal primarily with the subject matter. -- Cirt (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems encyclopedic to me and shows promise for expansion. The title however seems a little sensational to me. Perhaps a rename is in order? --Pereant antiburchius (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Covers a wide range of things, but it does so well and in a unifying way.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2011 (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.