Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dry ice bomb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Any manual-like components should be removed, of course; just as they should were they to appear in Meth_lab#Illicit_production, Pipe bomb#Design, and any other clandestine devices (Hydrogen bomb#Public body of knowledge concerning nuclear weapon design, etc.). El_C 17:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dry_ice_bomb

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Dry ice bomb
Dry_ice_bomb (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete / Nomination:This article gives dangerous advice and is overall unencylopedic. User101010 03:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep - I stumbled upon this article and find it intriguing. It is well written and informative. It may be regarding a dangerous object, but an encyclopedia should have information about it if it exists. Supertigerman 03:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong delete. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, especially not for things as dangerous as this. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep only if how-to parts are removed. It's a notable topic for sure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 12:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, subject is unquestionably notable given news coverage such as [1][2]etc., treatment in professional literature such as [3] and even Google Scholar. The article leans too heavily into HOW-TO territory, though. --Dhartung | Talk 04:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but remove the how-to elements. Topic is encyclopedic; instructions are not. Otto4711 04:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment most of the article is "how-to" including the safety section. Deleting the how-to also means deleting the safety how-to elements. --User101010 04:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment WikiPedia is not a recipe book / how-to guide. This is currently a recipe and how-to. 70.51.8.90 05:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as Dhartung suggests. I edited it to remove the detailed instruction and leave enough to show the dangers, with the refs. he found. I'd like a second opinion on the external links. DGG (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but remove how-to elements. I think the topic itself belongs here, but the article does lean too much towards how-to, and the "safety" section seems superfluous. It ought to be enough to say they are dangerous. However, these reasons only compel me to want to edit the article, not delete it. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 08:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per Dhartung's logic. "How-to" elements should be removed. Infiniteawe 08:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as it provides information, but doesn't cross the line into "how to" (as I am reading it). They have been featured in enough tv shows and such to be worthy of an article, even if a bit dangerous. Even nuclear bomb explains how they work, so trying to remove all info on how to make them is a bit silly. Pharmboy 14:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - enecylopedic, well referenced, and contains adequate warnings about hazards and (il)legal status. Gandalf61 15:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's getting colder in here... is that just the dry ice, or is it beginning to snow? Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 18:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Thanks for the hearty laugh. Burntsauce 17:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • STRONGEST POSSIBLE DELETE Good God! Why not have an article about how to make a roadside bomb? As soon as the "how to" information was added, this one was tainted forever. I don't think it has occurred to most of you that simply editing out the objectionable parts won't stop anyone from reading a previous version. User101010 and I must be the only parents in this discussion. The rest of you will be someday. Keeping this in Wikipedia is irresponsible. Mandsford 16:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Wikipedia has articles about all kinds of dangerous stuff that is encyclopedia worthy, such as nuclear bombs. Thousands of websites tell you basically how to make both. You can't stuff the genie back into the bottle, and "I'm a parent", "This is dangerous", "Please think of the children", "this is objectionable" are not reasons for deleting an article. As a side note, I'm pretty damn sure no kid will be introduced to the concept solely because of this article, but a parent overhearing kids talking about it might get some real info here. At least this article won't be about "k3wL w4y t0 m4k3 1cE b0mBs, d00dz" and present factual info, including the dangers. Pharmboy 18:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Response Actually, "This is dangerous" is one of the best reasons for deleting an article, and you don't need a Wikiprinciple to make the correct decision. Hopefully, nobody will be seriously injured after consulting a Wikipedia article, but if they do.... let's just say that it would be easy to prove (a) When someone logged onto Wikipedia; (b) When Wikipedia was alerted to a potential liability; and (c) What was done to correct the problem. Wikipedia leaves the best paper trail that a PI lawyer could ever ask for. So, if "Please think of the children" is silly, then I'll add "Please think of Wikipedia getting sued for an amount so big, donations won't cover it." If it's available from a zillion other websites, fine (great for eavesdropping Moms & Dads too!), but Wikipedia doesn't need to be hosting that type of thing. The solution would have to be to take out the "how to" part, delete all prior versions of the article from history, and put a block on further editing. Or, you could delete the damn thing and let someone less irresponsible put up a new version. Mandsford 19:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. I agree with everything Pharmboy said, but I would also like to point out that this stuff has valid potential use in the pyrotechnics industry. Ever watched a movie and wondered how the smaller (non-graphics) explosions were done? They're all done with small pyrotechnic explosions like this one. I have no idea if they actually do use this particular one, but they could. —gorgan_almighty
  • Keep now that the howto information has been removed. —gorgan_almighty 09:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep not a valid reason for deletion, how-to information should be removed, but not by deleting the article. Dhaluza 02:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note to closing administrator I pity any person who is assigned to make the decision on what to do with this one, for reasons of litigation. I recommend that you consult with others within Wikipedia and then make your decision, or even that you consult with an attorney, rather than letting ordinary people vote on this. Administrator, please note that when a lawsuit is filed concerning negligence, anyone can be considered a tortfeasor (ask or look it up); in many cases, a regular person must be sued in order to reach the entity for whom he or she works, which means that even a volunteer administrator who handled the deletion review could be sued personally. Please check with Wikipedia management, rather than to the editors here, when deciding what to do. Thank you. Mandsford 12:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
This sounds almost like a threat. I want to take your advice in the spirit of Good Faith, and hope that your concerns for the welfare of other editors is genuine, but might I suggest you consider rewording any like advice in the future. Pharmboy 15:47, 31 July 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.