- 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Exploding sheep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Though not entirely as silly as the title indicates this article provides no proof of notability as per WP:N and WP:RS. It is mostly about exploding sheep in a group of video games and has then been expanded with references to various unrelated uses of the words "exploding sheep". This survived an AfD 3 years ago which is available here. back then it was more specific. MartinDK 06:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete pretty well-known Worms weapon, but lack of reliable sourcing kills it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as someone said at the time of the last AfD, "I'm going to regret this later!" I think a references tag should have been apllied first so that one of the game enthusiasts could have addressed the needs brought up in the nomination. There's enough of a trend to suggest this is not trivia. Rgds, --Trident13 21:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article has existed in its current version for 3 years. During those 3 years the only reference that has been added is a link to a fansite that asserts no notability. WP:N and WP:RS are pretty clear on what makes a reliable source and how notability is asserted. In a situation like this a references tag is just a way to avoid AfD. I think we all know deep down that no one is going to add any references because you tag it. The backlog of unsourced articles is huge already. If sources are indeed available then there are 5 days to add them and the AfD template on the article is pretty hard to miss. MartinDK 21:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, there's nothing to establish this as a notable phenomenon any more than "blue car." We need sources talking about the subject, otherwise it's original research to consider it as a unified topic. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per Starblind. —A • D Torque 21:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Is a surprisingly far-reaching phenomina over a large selection of games. --h2g2bob (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Keeps a funny article that covers a concept. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 19:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Krimpet (talk) 06:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Several reliable sources have been added by User:Pomte over the course of this AfD, so I'm relisting it. Krimpet (talk) 06:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep seems to be a popular cultural thing and seems have notablility. DBZROCKS 12:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems to be widespread enough to warrant notability, and the article backs up the claims with plenty of sources. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep well referenced article about an interesting video game phenomenon. Resolute 04:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per other arguments given above. —Lowellian (reply) 03:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Having read the references, at least 2 of them mention the usage of exploding sheep in the different game previews and reviews. Those secondary sources are reliable, and the article now is notable by Wikipedia standards.--Kylohk 09:03, 13 May 2007 (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.