Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploding sheep (2nd 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 21:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding sheep

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

This seems to be mainly a topic in video games. Exploding sheep, I am sure, make for notable visuals, but the topic in its own right is not notable. That a bunch of games have exploding sheep, and that there's a band called "Exploding Sheep," that doesn't make for a notable topic, and I note that the references contain only mentions of exploding sheep, not significant in-depth discussion of the concept and philosophy of exploding sheep. I do not believe this to be a cultural occurence of any importance, and have not seen any evidence of the cultural, social, or anthropological significance of this phenomenon, if indeed it is a phenomenon. While the existences or non-existence of other articles is not always relevant, I would like to point out to defenders of this wiki that Exploding house is not a notable topic, and anyone who has seen The Longest Day knows that houses explode as well as or better than sheep, and, in the movies and in video games, with much greater frequency. This suggests to me that the present article is little more than a convenient cover-up for those seeking an outlet for childhood and adult frustrations they believe to be incurred by exposure to these lovely, woolly creatures (or possibly lack thereof? had to settle for a dog or a cat?). Drmies (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: after looking over the previous AfD, I would suggest to editors that the mere occurence or mention of an exploding sheep is not enough to establish notability for this topic. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The fact that several independent groups have kept it, unlike my vote to delete the Donkey article means we should keep it. --WngLdr34 (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as well. I mean sure it has happened in lots of games, and some of it is referenced, but it is notable? Anything can be blown up. Has a sheep ever blown up and killed somebody in real life? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or merge The article needs help, but the concept has been around long enough to have played a significant plot element in the novel Far From the Madding Crowd, written in 1874. If exploding sheep have been covered in media for 125 years, it's not just a videogame thing. The article could use a lot of expansion and work, but as a subject matter, its probably worth keeping around. As an alternative idea to deletion, per WP:PRESERVE, the article could be merged partially with Bloat, which is the actual medical problem leading to exploding sheep. --Jayron32 19:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternate merge target, Exploding animal, would make LOTS more sense, since that could be used to accumulate lots of marginally notable articles on exploding animals, rather than giving each its own article. --Jayron32 19:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exploding animal should probably be deleted, as well. It's not a real topic. No one has written about exploding animals in general. Zagalejo^^^ 04:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Its most certainly not a "cultural occurrence of any importance" but it seems to be a cultural theme significant enough for observation. Exploding houses are not as inherently as amusing; this is closer to the lines of More cowbell. --Milowent (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Milowent, that is an incredibly callous and cold remark, and I'm going to tell on you--my friend Shaun has some mean, mean cousins. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So I take it shaun won't explode in his own video game then? I am sure the programmers can barely resist the temptation. --Milowent (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You just be careful next time you pet your goldfish--what's hanging from its bottom might just be an antenna or a fuse. Mwahaha! Drmies (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Exploding animal. Notable for sure, but a better place to put the material. A previous AfD has been rapidly withdrawn and merged Exploding toad within that same article. It seems to me that a robust article on these phenomena is better than a scattered collection of articles on single exploding animals. --Cyclopia (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable aspect of popular culture. Dream Focus 10:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is original synthesis (WP:SYN). Yes, there are citations to reliable sources showing that each game has an exploding sheep in them. But no, none of these sources show that there is any kind of meme here. Strip away the synthesis, and we basically have a "List of video games that include exploding sheep". Marasmusine (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Marasmusine's argument should be considered by the aye-sayers above: sure there are plenty of sheep, but that those are cooler than exploding buildings doesn't make it a more suitable encyclopedic topic. I'm still waiting for someone to produce a reference that helps this topic be notable. Remember, this pedia of ours relies on reliable secondary information, and so for there is none to be found, only mentions of instances. If this were merged with Exploding animals, one could possibly get away with such original research (i.e., counting videogames with exploding sheep and counting exploding sheep in those games), but for a free-standing topic, we need more. Dream Focus, if this is such a notable aspect of popular culture (a rather vague and probably Western-centered statement--it probably discredits any culture not spending so much money on video games), can you produce a significant, in-depth discussion of the topic? Drmies (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If they're used this much in video games, they;re notable. There is a preconception here that significant memorable background elements in popular culture cannot be notable--agreed that their appearance in any one game isn;t enough for an individual article about that, but overall the element seems to be. The article properly avoids OR about what the appeal of this might be, but I wouldn;t be surprised if there were even sources for that. In fact, looking, there does seem to be one GScholar article that's relevant and could be added as an earlier example--and a discussion of the underlying humor behind that one. [1] . Looks like nobody on either side bothered actually checking, even though the GS hits are right at the top of the AfD. Sometimes I wonder at the quality of these discussions --we're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia based on sources, and nobody looks at them even when it's arranged to be done automatically. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 30 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.