Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploding animal (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 Speedy keep due to withdrawal of nomination and no other delete votes. Capitalistroadster 00:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is essentially built upon original research and seems unencyclopedic. See the previous AFD for more detail Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploding animal. Jersey Devil 09:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Withdrawl upon further review I am withdrawing my delete nom.--Jersey Devil 17:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Actually, the topics mentioned each have their own (properly sourced) articles, such as Exploding whale, Exploding toad, Bat bomb and Anti-tank dog. As odd as this article is, it isn't original research. When I saw that the only source mentioned in this article is Dave Barry, I almost despaired. After checking the linked articles, I think the solution is to import some of those sources to this article. The text is valid, sourced and not OR. Weird article, but we have plenty of those. SWAdair 10:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per SWAdair, has properly sourced articles and a grouping template - {{exploding organisms}}. Probably needs a move to 'Exploding animals', redirect from 'Exploding organisms' and the template updating to reference this article, but as above, weird but true. --Steve (Slf67) talk 10:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, well referenced, valid topic. --Terence Ong (C | R) 10:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep, a well known, notable phenomena. In fact, if I remember correctly, isn't one of the exploding animal articles currently a featured article?--TBCΦtalk? 11:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be Exploding whale. SWAdair 11:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)#[reply]
- Keep per above, but it could do with some more sources as SWAdair says. Hut 8.5 11:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep although I would think the wording of the article (mainly the opening paragraph) should be changed to reflect the subject of actual occurances of exploding animals, rather than acting as a definition of what an exploding animal is ("an 'exploding animal' is an animal that explodes..." Gee, really?). Wavy G 14:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep as the original nom has been withdrawn and all other comments are for keep. I'm delighted we can keep this. Robovski 23:27, 11 November 2006 (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.