Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entombed animal


 * 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. —  Aitias  // discussion 15:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Entombed animal

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Original research synthesis of examples of animals that stayed alive after being encased in stone. Relevant, factual information can be included at frog or toad. Otherwise, as a subject, this article does not deserve to exist as it is essentially a POV-fork. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It's not an original synthesis. The topic of entombed animals has been discussed in multiple sources, which are cited in the article. What POV am I pushing? I include a section describing the explanations put forward. Zagalejo^^^ 19:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're pushing the forteana POV which is, essentially, that perceived "anomalies" are notable simply because they are anomalies. We can cover all these "cases" at the articles on the respective animals. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if this is all bollocks, the idea of frogs and toads in stone is an important piece of folklore. Buckland's experiment received a lot of attention in the nineteenth century:, , , , , , etc. (I started this article without knowing about Google Books. But now, I could probably expand it fivefold!) Zagalejo^^^ 19:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are ignoring the reasons posted for deletion. Discussing the folklore of frogs and toad entombed in stone seems to be a reasonable thing to discuss at frog and toad. You might even make mention of Buckland's experiment on those pages. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it would be an awkward digression in the frog and toad articles. Zagalejo^^^ 19:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Frog, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no way to move this information there unless you chop it down to one or two sentences, which I think is a bit extreme. Zagalejo^^^ 20:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Extreme" only if you are a fortean. However, if you look for third-party independent sources, I think you'll find that one to two sentences is more than sufficient for issues of WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS, and WP:V. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Comment 2 or three sentences sounds about right, along with reliable scientific data on the ability of some amphibians to survive harsh conditions for extreme periods. Many sources such as say frogs can freeze solid all winter and revive in the spring, or can estivate in a state of slowed respirationduring a hot dry summer. Edison (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Books turns up a few hits, mostly from the turn of the last century. Recent uses are about what you would expect; the entombed animal is dead. Scholar has 3 hits, none related to the article. News shows 2 hits (same article) about an unrelated topic. The 4 citations in the article are either not third-party or not reliable. Conclusion: topic is not notable for an encyclopedia unless third-party, reliable sources can be found.
 * Why is the Nature paper not reliable? Espresso Addict (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a letter to the editor. Not every letter to the editor about a subject confers enough sourcing/notability on the subject for an entire article. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're selectively quoting from that note. This quote seems to summarize it (IMO):
 * The true interpretation of these experiences appears to be this&mdash;a frog or toad is hopping about while a stone is being broken and the non-scientific observer immediately rushes to the conclusion that he has seen a creature dropping out of the stone itself. One thing is certainly remarkable, that although numbers of field geologists and collectors of specimens of rocks, fossils, and minerals are hammering away all over the world, not one of these investigators has ever come upon a specimen of a live frog or toad imbedded in stone or in coal.
 * -Atmoz (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How was that selectively quoting? I got the gist of the idea; I wasn't trying to hide anything. By the way, you probably won't find a lot under the exact phrase "entombed animal". That's the phrase used by Jerome Clark in his book, but other sources will simply use phrases like "frogs found in stone", or something like that. Counting Google hits will do no good with this subject. Zagalejo^^^ 22:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a fairly well-known "phenomenon" which was widely discussed in the Victorian era and has resulted in some pop-culture references. The Nature letter alone seems sufficient to verify outside the world of the Fortean Times. The fact that the phenomenon is likely to result from mis-observations does not make it any less valid, and I don't see any problem with original synthesis; the article needs better referencing, like most in the encyclopedia, but otherwise seems fine to me. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a letter to the editor written in Nature, and the letter only obliquely mentions the subject. We cannot base an entire article on it, obviously. We can simply put it in the Frog or Toad article and leave it at that. Did you even read the letter? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have a subscription to Nature, so I could only read the snippet view in Google Books. I believe that a non-trivial discussion in a letter to Nature, probably at that date the top science journal in the world, is sufficient notability for our encyclopedia. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There's more than just that letter. Look at the Google Books links I provided above, all referring to Buckland's experiment. Zagalejo^^^ 22:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You should add some of these to the article, Zagalejo. The Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine one is particularly useful in establishing notability, as this is a detailed description in one of the major periodicals of its time. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple new refs. Zagalejo^^^ 22:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Here are some additional sources:, , . Again, I ask that people chiming in on this discussion not limit themselves to the exact phrase "entombed animal". Zagalejo^^^ 22:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article does not appear to be original synthesis, nor a POV fork.  It's just a pretty straightforward compilation of info on a weird subject.  As Espresso Addict notes, having an article is in no way an endorsement of any particular viewpoint on the "phenomenon".--ragesoss (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge relevant bits of the article to the articles on Toad and Frog. The article says belief in prolonged entombed survival generally relates to these animals. The 1820 scientific report of such animals surviving for one year (but not two) sealed in porous limestone, and any modern observations of amphibians ability to survive for extended periods in conditions which would kill most animals seems highly important. If this is presented as biological science rather than mysticism, the 19th century anecdotes are not the reliable sources required to support extreme claims. The sources presented to show belief in their very long term (years? millenia?) survival in coal lumps do not make the case that this is an important bit of folklore or an important area of pseudoscience, outside the Fortean realm. The article does not show reports of or belief in higher animals surviving prolonged entombment. I note that the Toad article is extremely stubby for such a well known and important animal. One letter to the editor of Nature in 1910 does not go far toward saving the article.This can be related to Estivation and the ability of some frogs to freeze solid and revive . Hop to it! Edison (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why must something like this be important "outside of the Fortean realm"? I've seen similar arguments at AFD before. To me, it's like demanding a baseball player be discussed in botany journals. As long as an article makes it clear that claims are merely claims, what's the harm in discussing a bit of Forteana? (I'd argue that the entombed animal phenomena is notable enough outside of the Fortean community, but I'm not sure what more I can do to convince everyone.) Zagalejo^^^ 04:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Numerous sources have been shown by Zagalejo. Edward321 (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If this were just the Forteana I could see it, but the idea was pretty common a while back. Ol' Rip the Horned Toad does not really cover the whole topic, and no other merge targets seem likely. A rename might be in order, though. - Eldereft (cont.) 02:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Bondeson's Fortean Times article is an edited extract from his book, so should qualify as a RS.  There is his earlier Cornell U Press book, reviewed in ISIS, that I added to further reading,  and the pages in Living Wonders by Bob Rickard and John Michell cited in the Fortean Times book extract.  Together with the other sources cited above by Zagalejo and others, notability and even recent interest.is clearly shown.John Z (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable fable. The historical material alone is sufficient to justify an article. I don't always think highly of the Guardian's science & especially medical coverage, but their article did an adequate job on this DGG (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The belief is a real subject, which has been handled by more people than are currently cited in the article (I vaguely remember a discussion in a popular science writer, perhaps Steven Jay Gould or Martin Gardner). The falsity of the belief is not something that should be addressed via Articles for deletion. N p holmes (talk) 10:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As per above. Also, the subject is interesting enough that I've decided to look into it. The article has value, even if it describes a subject that is possibly mythical in nature. Elucidate ( light up ) 10:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.