Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploding head


 * 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 Delete. It doesn't have the strength of references to justify its approach. Tyrenius (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Exploding head

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Such pure and unadulterated original research that it must have a street value higher than that of crack. While some alleged sources appear in the "External links" section, they are not cited inline and do not actually appear to legitimately source the article, but are instead about vaguely related topics. It's pure South Park, Red Dwarf, etc., fancruft. I allege no bad faith on anyone's part, I just think this article's existence is a mistake, and is leading to blatant violation of NOR policy (i.e. out of enthusiasm, not ill will). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 09:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and this time let's not simply count votes. Pure cruft just like Exploding sheep which unfortunately will never be deleted it appears due to vote counting. EconomicsGuy 09:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Can we keep this to the merits (or lack thereof) of the article, instead of wikipoltics? If you have an issue with a partiuclar admin's closure of an XfD, that should be taken up at WP:DRV, rather than used as a thwacking stick in another XfD. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 10:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: There is nothing in the article that's the original conclusion of the writer. With sources, I had the lucidity to do only the most preliminary of searches, but for one thing there's this article in an upcoming academic journal that uses the concept - the visual expression - offhandedly and extensively, demonstrating that its significance is such that it can be assumed to seem appropriate to an audience that's not even remotely related to media. --Kizor 10:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: I note from the next !vote below that sources are being added. That's great, in theory. I still question whether this could possibly be an encyclopedic article, just due to the nature of it.  It's a coincidental "non-defining intersection" if I may borrow terms from WP:OVERCAT.  We might as well have an article about nosebleeds in romance novels, sunglasses in science fiction, or the rising prevalence of women in the roles of coroners in police dramas. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 06:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - a few sources have now been added by Kizor to prove the subject's existence. Subject is also notable for being a storytelling device regularly used in cartoon comedy, which can be used to communicate (as an example) a response to a difficult idea; and is therefore a cultural artefact which probably would yield much serious third-party analysis. (I think Dilbert used this in just the past month.) While I wish the article could be even more thoroughly sourced, and it's not at a front-page feature-article level, its quality is probably in the top half of the 2 million articles we have here. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 11:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete – I read and re-read and re-re-read the article and I am still not sure what point the author is trying to make. Is he/she trying to explain the visual impact of “Exploding Heads” or explain what an “Exploding Head” means in atypical situation?  If so a definite delete!  That is strictly personal interpretation. Shoessss |  Chat  13:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Right; that's really the point of this AfD. Regardless of the sources cited so far, the article seems to consist of mostly original research. I wasn't specific before, but to spell it out, the piece seems to be largely composed of "novel sythesis" per the terms of WP:NOR. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 06:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Shoessss. Twenty Years 15:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions.  -- Hiding T 17:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - a nice little article - better than I expected. The nomination just seems to be I don't like it which is insufficient reason to delete. Colonel Warden 18:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Refutation: No, the nom is grounded in WP:NOR. I've clarified above in more specific terms. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 06:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not persuaded It's a common metaphor.  Not seeing the original research or synthesis.  Colonel Warden 09:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -RiverHockey 20:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It appears to be a term invented for the sake of creating an entry on the subject. Speaking even as a fan of heads exploding in fiction, I fail to see evidence of notability. -Verdatum 22:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I too am a fan of exploding heads, the more gory the better, but that doesn't necessarily make it encyclopedic. I tried really hard to like this article, but after going over it a couple of times, all I could think of was "this belongs on a horror/movie blog". —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 06:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The more usual form of the phrase is "...head explode".  Google Scholar has 60 hits for this.  Colonel Warden 09:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * None of the ones on the first two pages of results, which is as far as I have time to look right now, actually explain what it is, why it occurs, or the reason that it is a trope. (They just use the trope.  They don't explain it.)  These are the original research that you are not seeing.  Please cite a source that explains the Five Ws of this concept. Uncle G 12:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep per the existence of sources. Cut out the WP:OR.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 12:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI We also have an article on Exploding head syndrome which references this one. Colonel Warden 15:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * comment - that article and this one are on very different topics. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * DeleteNeither of the sources quoted are in any way authoritative and they don't even discuss exploding heads as a concept. The idea that a reference to an explosing head somewhere proves that the concept exists is OR. It would need someone with some claim to be worth listening to *outside Wikipedia* to say "this is evidence that the exploding head concept is a big deal" for it to be suitable for an entry here.Hobson 20:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete pure unadulterated original research as someone just said. Coccyx Bloccyx 00:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete pure orignal research essay. I'm sure the sources will all just link to metions of exploding heads and not cover the OR problems with this article. Ridernyc 06:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - No indication this is anything but OR. Judgesurreal777 17:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kizor. Rray (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Hobson. Recreate when sources exist that discuss exploding heads as a concept. - ∅  ( ∅ ), 00:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. The references are a bit dodgy at best, and the material in the article represents a synthesis of ideas. -- Whpq (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. There is a fair amount of crap in this article, but the concept is grounded and I believe that it's something that has been in a fair amount of fiction and legend.  The section on the Secret Service visiting an animator would be an excellent example of fiction-meets-real-life (that WP:FICT discusses) if only it were sourced.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Question: Unless you are being ironic, how is this a "keep" !vote, if you note that it is full of original research "crap", and the one thing you seem to think is good about the article is unsourced? —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 05:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You may want to take a look at WP:PROBLEM. AFD asks the question of whether or not the article deserves to exist, not just if it deserves to exist in it's current form.  AFD is not cleanup. Hope that helps. -Verdatum (talk) 06:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The flip side of that coin is that "it might be sourced someday" is not a strong defense, generally, and is a particularly weak one against an AfD that raises other issues, including rampant WP:OR. My point above was that the one thing Arichnad mentioned that was good about the article wasn't sourced. That seems to be a moot point now, though my other point - that even this supporter says it is full of WP:OR still stands. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 06:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I've slightly been saying. The concept is grounded, and fairly prevalent despite being one that you wouldn't expect to be. That the core is valid shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Regarding the Secret Service visit, sourcing things that happened online before the Internet's population explosion is tricky, but I've scrounged up references for it! --Kizor (talk) 05:27, 8 December 2007 (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.