Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploding animal (3rd 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 - this is clearly a disruptive nomination. Furthermore, the related AfDs that closed as merge to this article in the last couple days are sufficient evidence that there is consensus for it to exist. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Exploding animal
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

origional resarch and this article is becoming a junkyard for articles that should be deleted. 3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 21:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: After many of your AFDs closing with the result of merging to this article, you nominate this for deletion. Joe Chill (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is a bad faith nomination. Joe Chill (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a bad faith nomination there are problems on the article with WP:OR.--3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 21:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All of the comments on your talk page, AFDs, removing referenced content, saying that the rescue template is canvassing, nominating articles for deletion after only a minute or two including winners of major awards, and suggesting a merge to this article in an AFD show that this is obviously a bad faith nomination. Joe Chill (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Joe Chill Evosoho, that your behavior deleting so many article recently is very troubling, and several other editors have said so too recently. Please don't put "delete" in a comment section, it makes it appear like there are two editors instead of one wanting to delete this article. If you want to put delete, put it in the nomination. Ikip (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep very well referenced article. What original research? Calling other editors contributions "junk" can be considered uncivil. Ikip (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Disruptive nomination, considering that the nom has been actually merging other articles into this one, in the two hours immediately preceding nominating this one.    DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 26 September 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.