Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploding tree

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The consensus below is that the proffered sources are enough to keep the article. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding tree

[edit]
Exploding tree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been tagged as a hoax since September 15, 2009. Although I disagree that it's a hoax, the article looks like it is composed primarily of original research. If I am wrong (this looks like it could be a list of some sort), I will withdraw this nomination. Cunard (talk) 05:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Fences and windows. This is just a silly meme. Hesperian 02:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete never notable - exploding aspects are not notable variants of non-exploded entities. If anything, the information can be covered in the specific organisms referred to. Chances are, there is no need for it. This information is more for a book on trivia than an actual encyclopedia. I'm surprised there isn't an exploding watermelons article. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Certainly not a hoax, as I've seen trees explode when struck by lightning, but not notable at all. Things explode sometimes. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and pure WP:SYN. Much of this category shouldn't exist. They were mostly written before we had well-developed policies against such original research. Cool Hand Luke 13:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per CHL. Horologium (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability can seem a bit marginal, but there's sources, lots of popular culture coverage and it is nice to see the subject covered this way. There is room for improvement in my opinion. --Cyclopia (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep mentioned in multiple reliable sources as one of the hazzard of forest fires, also a property of some plants during seeding. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable, if peculiar. The ability to refer readers of other articles to a place where information about trees exploding generally is compiled is one of the advantages of a paperless encyclopedia. Original research can be edited out easily enough with deletion.--otherlleft 21:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep or merge with lightning How can an article be a hoax with this many references? I haven't checked the references myself, have those editors who are calling this a hoax done so? This is a notable, albeit odd article. Ikip (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously. Pretty much anything will explode if it's heated rapidly. The "exploding things" pages were an unfunny in-joke five years ago, and they're an unfunny in-joke now. Oh, and Ikip, you might want to actually read discussions before you wade into them, as there's not a single person here calling it a hoax. – iridescent 21:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • About reading discussions, well, I think that Ikip talks of the nom paragraph, which says that the article has been tagged as a hoax :)--Cyclopia (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • It seems highly unlikely that "unfunny Wikipedia in-jokes" have travelled back in time to occur in encyclopaedias of the 19th century, and reports by wilderness explorers and tree growers before, then, and since. Uncle G (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was asked to revisit this discussion; despite the expansion, I still can't see any reason to keep this article. It still reads like someone wanted to have an article titled "Exploding tree", and cherry-picked vaguely related material to try to fit; describing wood splintering due to freezing sap as "exploding" is stretching the meaning of the word well past breaking point. "Making a bang" doesn't equate to "explosion"; a rapid increase in volume – the defining characteristic of an explosion as opposed to simple breakage – isn't present. Any rigid object subjected to gradually increasing stress will eventually splinter in this same way; it's no more an explosion than the bottom of an over-filled plastic bag ripping open. – iridescent 18:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as synthesis. The individual sentences in the article could be appropriate in articles about lightning, forest fires, the sandbox tree, and April Fools' Day. That doesn't mean they should be joined together in one article. If any editor can produce a single reliable source that discusses "exploding trees" in general as a subject, then let them bring it forward now. --RL0919 (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I left this for a while, wondering whether anyone else would find the sources that I turned up. They didn't. So I've added them. Uncle G (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, these sources do not discuss a general topic of exploding trees. The material from Loudon is about the effects of freezing weather, including the effect of cracking and splitting trees. He doesn't call them explosions, he just says they can sound like "the explosion of fire-arms". The Beecher reference isn't about trees at all, but about wooden boxes. The other two are anecdotes about trees during freezes. The article already had sources about specific types of tree "explosions". What it lacks is any source that considers these different types of events to be a generalized phenomenon of "exploding trees". Absent that, it seems more appropriate for these unrelated phenomena to be discussed in the distinct articles about their causes. Basically, you just found material for use in Frost#Effect on plants. Good stuff, but not a justification for keeping this particular article. --RL0919 (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You haven't read the Beecher reference. Know how I can tell? Because you assert that it isn't about trees at all. Kiddo, go and read it, then you'll have a better idea of what it's about and a sounder basis to make assertions like the above. Hint: It not only mentions trees, but it also cites Loudon.

        You clearly aren't actually reading the sources presented, so your assertions here as to what they contain can at best be taken with a large pinch of salt. Heck, you clearly haven't even looked beyond the two sources mentioned above, let alone at the other twenty mentioned in the article. Indeed, it's fairly evident that you haven't even read the article and even the titles of the sources. Guess how I can, similarly, know that straightaway from what you write. Uncle G (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks to me like the Beecher reference is found here. Here's how it reads, in part:
It seems like this argues against the phenomenon. Unless there is another reference elsewhere in the book - and Google claims this is the only hit on the words "explode" and "exploding" - I am not sure why this OR the fact that it quotes Loudon makes it somehow a super-source that justifies the article's existence.  Frank  |  talk  18:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps I should have worded my first sentence as "the material added to the article does not ..." instead of "the sources do not..." My apologies for that poor choice of wording on my part, particularly if that led Uncle G to focus on lecturing me about reading sources rather than addressing the concern I raised. My original concern was that the article is mixing different types of "explosion" phenomena with various causes (freezing, forest fire, lightning, and reproductive process) that are not mixed in the source material as a single subject of "exploding trees". From the cited sources that I have reviewed (not all, but some), only one discusses more than one of these phenomena. That is a Q&A column that mentions two of the four phenomena (freezing and lightning). That piece post-dates the Wikipedia article, producing the possibility of circularity. (The author of the column has linked to WP on a number of occasions, so we know she uses us as a research source.) Since this is the only source cited in relation to more than one of the four types of "explosions", it seems likely that it is the only one that mentions more than one. Since it is a shaky source and only mentions two of the four phenomena, the problem of synthesis still exists: is there a reliable source that generalizes on the subject of exploding trees in a way that incorporates the different phenomena discussed in the article? I still see no answer to that question. --RL0919 (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not in the outcome of the AFD, no. Contesting every view other than your own, however, generates an unnecessarily adversarial atmosphere. It's impolite. I did think mentioning it might have the paradoxical effect / unintended consequence of inviting more badgering. Your reply to my comment supports that. — Athaenara ✉ 23:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Heavily footnoted, no longer primarily OR as claimed by nom. --Stepheng3 (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since my !vote, the article has been re-written but I still can't agree that it's not a WP:SYNTH violation. No documents published in RS exist on the phenomenon of "exploding trees"; the conclusion that such a thing may exist is only reached by forcing together excerpts from articles that speak about maple syrup, cold temperatures and reports on damage by lightning. I commend Uncle G for trying to rescue the article but, if I'm to be completely honest, I don't feel more informed about "exploding trees" than I did before ever stumbling across this piece of cruft in the first place. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I enjoyed reading it but it looked as original research to me. Dy yol (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To say the article on Exploding tree is SYN because what it contains is information about exploding trees does not make any sense to me. That's exactly what it ought to contain. In addition, it properly has content about the concept in general, and its supposed nature as a hoax, which it isnt. All well sourced, as expected from Uncle G when he takes an article in hand to improve it. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:SYNTH states to "not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". My argument is that the article in question does exactly this. If you disagree that the article does not violate the above definition, that's completely understandable because I don't expect everyone to agree but please don't ridicule my opinion by misrepresenting my statement in such a sarcastic way; nowhere did I say "Exploding tree is SYN because what it contains is information about exploding trees". Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand, but (1)I'd like to see what conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sourced is presented in the article (2)If there is indeed OR in the article, we can remove it without deleting the article, unless the concept itself of the article is OR -which doesn't seem. --Cyclopia - talk 13:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Above. Awesome work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was initially against keeping it, but the depth to which editors have expanded the article with reliable and verifiable citations has swayed me. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has improved greatly since the nomination, and it appears to be well-researched and footnoted. Some of the material isn't really about explosions but things which might seem a bit like explosions, but I'm OK with that. The topic seems marginal (especially insofar as it is knitting together a bunch of mostly unconnected facts), but there is probably more to find. The section on exploding trees in fiction is currently just an uninspiring list, but see for example [1] a scholarly discussion which mentions (in passing) an exploding tree in Flannery O'Conner's work as a metaphor and compares it to the burning bush of Moses. [2] discusses an exploding tree in Lord of the Flies. Kingdon (talk) 01:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sheer number of sources persuaded me to vote Keep. --M4gnum0n (talk) 10:32, 1 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Exploding_tree&oldid=1137838115"