Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploding snake (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 merge to Exploding animal. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding_snake

Meme is now obsolete, so I am hoping we can be sober about this article and agree that it is unencyclopedic and non-notable. Ori.livneh (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete please. This is not notable, however much internet buzz there is or may have been. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to exploding animal. I see no evidence it is/was or ever attempted to be a meme. This course of action would enlarge our coverage of exploding animals and its perfectly verifiable and documented in multiple sources (thus meeting WP:GNG). Exactly what other guidelines did you think applied here? - Mgm|^(talk) 20:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, it's not certain whether the snake actually exploded. Also,Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS. There are guidelines for using news coverage as a criterion for notability, and they are clear about cases like this. Coverage was trivial and superficial and motivated by an eye-popping photo, not any inherent interest associated with the story. Ori.livneh (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Merge to exploding animal. -Marcusmax(speak) 20:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to exploding animal sounds like the most reasonable course of action. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This story received widespread media attention [1], and continued to be mentioned in the news for months after the incident happened. (For example, see this Sept 2006 National Geographic update.) "Exploding snake" isn't a great title, though, so maybe the article should be renamed. (I disagree with merging this to Exploding animal - that article seems like an OR mishmash of various phenomena. None of the sources discuss exploding animals in general.) Zagalejo^^^ 21:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response Look, when you cite the fact that this story received widespread media attention, it should be noted what kind of attention that was. It was not on front pages. Op-ed pieces did not discuss its implications. Analysts did not debate it. It was syndicated not for the relevance or interest of the story (which is anyway not known -- see my comment below) but because it was an eye-catching photo that helps sell newspapers. Please be wise about this. Ori.livneh (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article gives a good overview of the implications of the find, and the speculation over what exactly happened. This might be a good source too, but I can't immediately access it. The shock value was a big reason why the story spread, but the incident did generate some serious thinking about the changing ecosystem in the Everglades. Zagalejo^^^ 03:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I want to also pose the question of what the hell "exploding snake" is. The text of the article speaks of "one documented case of exploding snake", making it sound like some kind of recognized cognition, when it is no such thing. Also, note that it is not even known whether the snake actually exploded (see Snopes link in the article). It's possible the snake was simply eviscerated by a human. I would fix the phrasing and add facts if I had any idea what about what thing this article was. Ori.livneh (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with your assessment of the title, I had never heard of this incident before so when I saw the title I had no idea what it was talking about, if this article stays then it should probably be renamed. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The title was probably chosen to make the article fit within the "exploding series" (exploding whale, exploding sheep, exploding toad, etc). I agree that it's not an appropriate title, for the same reasons you mentioned. Something like 2005 alligator-python incident might be a little better (though that's still not great.) Zagalejo^^^ 03:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the simple reason that the last AfD decided that the topic was notable, and notability is not temporary. And if you're not going to go for that, then yes, merge it into exploding animals. Matt (talk) 07:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A 13 foot snake tried to eat a 6 foot gator and died, was then found burst open and missing its head. Cartoonist B. Kliban gave us the rule of thumb: "Never eat anything bigger than your head." "Exploding" is likely an exaggeration of a dead animal decomposing, swelling, then the gasses being released when the rotting flesh loses its integrity, followed by some person or other animal dragging away the head. This hardly merits the term "explosion." This is a one-off weird water-cooler story. Wikipedia is not and should not become a compendium of every freak occurance that got a little news coverage. See the essay Wikipedia:News articles as well as WP:NOT#NEWS. Edison (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to exploding animal per above. There are three good cites in the stub. Once notable, always notable. AfD is not for mergers. Bearian (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to exploding animal.Nrswanson (talk) 09:04, 19 March 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.