Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of animals that explode

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was The vote was 16/5/5 - I've found nothing worthy of merging to "exploding animals" as there's already a listbox on it... so I've gone ahead and deleted the pages. --

List of exploding animals

Redundant with

For the record, my vote is delete (yes, I know I created one of the lists). However, let's review the situation we have here: we now have one of the articles on VFD and VFU. At one point the list article was recreated with an angry blast at the administrator who deleted it, but I notice that Tony has undeleted it. So the VFU is now no longer valid, yet is still listed. I created a new article, which is now being voted on VFD. There is also a category for exploding animals, along with a

Exploding whales (possibly) having eclipsed Sperm whale and Gray whale

. I plead innocence!

It appears that whales and animals aren't the only things that have exploded here. It appears that the entirety of Wikipedia has gone, quite literally, mad. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Lists are useful. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I note that this page has just undergone a lengthy and detailed undelete process. It therefore seems odd to find it re-listed for deletion. Unless, of course, the Cabal don't like it.--Simon Cursitor 09:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • No, it is procedural to list an article on VFD if it passes VFU. This is because VFU is about process (this was undeleted because the process was deemed invalid) and VFD is about content (this may still be considered lack of content by some people). TINC. HAND. Radiant_>|< 09:55, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • In practice, VfUs are not just about process, they are heavily influenced by VFD considerations. 10:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) this remark was made by
      User:Kappa. Radiant_>|<
      10:38, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Unless there are unusual circumstances, the last step of the undeletion process is to list the undeleted article on VFD. The reason this one was undeleted is a common one: It was argued that this was an improper speedy deletion, and that it should be subject to the full VFD treatment. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually I restored the thing as an invalid speedy. I ignored the VfU as it was superfluous--the article having been deleted without a proper VfD. This VfD is procedurally correct and should have been tried first. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant with the category. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, lists are never redundant with categories.
  Kappa
  10:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Please see
    Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes... "Lists are often redundant with categories. In order not to be redundant, a list must do a significantly better job of presenting the articles than the respective category.". Radiant_>|<
    10:35, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've seen it :)
      Kappa
      11:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with nomination. JamesBurns 10:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Kappa is wrong. Some lists are redundant with categories. This is one. The distinction between "military uses" and "just your random animal exploding" isn't enough added value to justify this. (I'm not even talking about that hideous navigation box we also have). JRM · Talk 10:34, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
• Delete per Radiant. As for the keep voters, which one do you want to keep? The content of the two listed above is identical. Postdlf 10:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Obviously one should redirect to the other, I don't mind which.
    Kappa
    12:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge both into
  exploding mammal (which should be moved back to exploding animal). Category and list can co-exist (hey, that rhymes!) sjorford →•←
  11:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge
  List of exploding animals. I don't see any reason for lists and categories not to co-exist. Why is it never the category that's redundant? - Mgm|^(talk)
  11:09, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Because if it were, it would be on
    WP:CFD rather than here. Radiant_>|<
    12:01, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:18, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• merge, redirect.
  dab (ᛏ)
  12:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - the threshold for cruft is so low, I can't see how we can delete anything with real information. Guettarda 12:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as suggested by MacGyverMagic . I never realized there were so many exploding animals out there. This opens up a whole new world for me! 23skidoo 13:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete How is the "Other" section (which will likely always be the largest section) useful or encyclopedic? If I shove an explosive into it, I can make just about any animal explode. --Xcali 14:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - The criteria for addition to the list should be something similar to those (currently) found on
    exploding mammal. No vote -- Jonel | Speak
    17:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per
  ^talk
  14:40, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect to
  exploding mammal becomes the main article, as per User:Sjorford. Note: The original speedy was appropriate, as per the actual content of the article at that time. func(talk)
  15:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete this is silly. Dunc|☺ 17:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, though it needs a title change, since blowing up an animal doesn't make it an "animal that explodes" per se. --Tothebarricades 20:35, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Merge per MGM. --Randy 23:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with
  exploding mammal which should, itself, be a subtitle within exploding animal rather than the main article itself. Tomer ^TALK
  00:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete useless article, could be expanded to include just about every animal that could ingest my dynamite. Midster 02:26, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Everything blowed up real good betimes. This is just one of those "funny" lists. I'm sure they're enjoyable to write, but they're of no use in reading. We can have a category, or a list, but not a category and two lists. Duplicate material that should stay gone. Geogre 04:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both - they are redundant with the category - Skysmith 07:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete its as sensible as List of animals that blink and List of animals that can lick their nose. ~~~~ 17:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons given by others. Say, folks, did you know the Fascinating Fun Fact that you can take a live sponge, force it through a sieve with a scrubbing action (I see our article suggests the use of a blender), until it is decomposed into individual cells and becomes a tank full of discolored water, and the cells will gradually rejoin and reconstitute themselves into a live sponge again? Does that count as an animal that explodes? Or as an animal that cannot be successfully exploded? Or what? Dpbsmith (talk) 20:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • That counts as an animal being forced through a sieve. *sigh* 80.229.14.246 17:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • List of animals that can survive being forced through a sieve ...
• Delete. Lists are evil. --
  ✉
  22:10, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment the original article was never redundant with the category and would be doing much better in this VfD
• Delete. Redundant with category. — Phil Welch 03:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - for the people that are still voting delete, where does that leave exploding animal? Either vfd it, or allow the list to be merged to that page (where it belongs). sjorford →•← 08:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I just have to point this out, if no one else has. If this list is kept, shouldn't we add "Human"? After all, we are mammals, and therefore animals. And I'm sure many, many more humans have exploded than whales or bats or chickens combined. Just a thought. wikinick 30 June 2005 09:13 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an

undeletion request

, if it does not; or below this section.