Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploding sheep (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   delete.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 20:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

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

While it passes verifibaility to some level (in that there is noted references that sheep exist that explode in games), it doesn't really pass WP:GNG for a stand alone article on the subject. There is a lot of original research as well. The few references that note the meme could be mentioned on List of internet phenomena without compromising anything in this article. 陣 内 Jinnai 01:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If this article isn't substantially different from the two previous Afds this article qualifies as db-g4. Just pointing out.  elektrik SHOOS  03:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - I repeat my comments from the previous AfD: "This is original synthesis. Yes, there are citations to reliable sources showing that each game has an exploding sheep in them. But no, none of these sources show that there is any kind of meme here. Strip away the synthesis, and we basically have a 'List of video games that include exploding sheep'." Marasmusine (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  Marasmusine (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Regardless of what motivated the prior keeps, the concept of the exploding sheep is notable on different levels; originally, as the classic "Ssss...BOOOM.. Baaa!!" joke by Johnny Carson, but also as an image in fiction and video games and, because it's so well-known, something that the press picks up on when it happens in real life "Exploding sheep spark earthquake fears" and even as a rather cruel means of clearing a minefield and having mutton for dinner "Bosnia lacks cash to purge killer mines".  Sounding silly is not the same as non-notable.  For people who worry about this being "embarrassing" to Wikipedia, about 35 percent of all the articles here qualify for that description.  Mandsford 17:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If its so well known why cannot after this time an article not built around synthesis be created? I don't see how the concept is inherentaly notable just because its been in some video games and comedy routines. 陣 内 Jinnai 18:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable as a concept in that there do not appear to be independent reliable sources that significantly cover the subject. The article conflates sheep that explode in video games with sheep who trigger bombs with sheep that explode via growth. These are unrelated to each other and the conflation constitutes original research by sythesis. Otto4711 (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete original research by synthesis. No sources address this topic directly and in detail. Only indirect mentions or proof which are not enough to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as i opined the last time this was up for AFD, wasn't it just yesterday? Its a notable concept.  Should need a supermajority to try to delete it this time after two keeps, since its always random who will show up to !vote.--Milowent (talk) 05:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the last time was October 2009, which I remember because I happened to have closed that AFD :) –MuZemike 22:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Though I've seen this concept in a few games, there just aren't enough reliable sources that provide significant coverage to satisfy general notability guidelines. Sources that go in-depth are not reliable, and on the inverse any reliable sources provide only trivial mentions, which usually entail simply the words "exploding sheep" without any information as to the concept itself. --Teancum (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2010 (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.