Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploding hamster

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 delete. Jaranda wat's sup 03:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exploding hamster

By its own admission, this topic is obscure. Simply put: no way is "an obscure in-joke in the early years of [a] Finnish computer magazine" notable. Not in the least. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. (The only reason this article exists is for silly parallelism with exploding whale and exploding toad.) zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • DELETE

Cmon now...an exploding hamster? Get that outta here...Reppin the bay 01:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per Nom. --Shane (talk/contrib) 01:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. After all, detailed obscure topics hurt no one. It is a valid topic. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 02:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Chris —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to MikroBitti as that is the most approprate place for this. Crazynas t 02:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Chris, also pls define where it falls under WP:NOT I can't really understand where you're coming from, because as far as I can see it doesn't fit under any of the "wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" catergories! -- Librarianofages 02:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Bear in mind that that is not our only content policy. The verifiability of this article is also an issue. If, as the article states, the joke was never discussed or explained by the people who made it, who were the only people who understood what it was about, how can a verifiable encyclopaedia article on the subject be written? Where are the sources? Uncle G 13:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the Exploding hamster and Exploding head and Exploding sheep. The rest of the exploding items are legit articles. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of in-jokes about computer gaming works for me. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I never heard of a hampster exploding because it was released from scotch tape, but at the Columbus, Ohio zoo I once saw an elephant blow snot out of its trunk while its handler was unchaining it. I hope that helps. george 06:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a place for obscure finnish jokes JeffMurph 08:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a place for obscure jokes -- GWO
  • Delete Not a place for jokes. Vizjim 14:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • PS That is a joke. Vizjim 14:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the joke, which has stopped being used, has not reached any degree of prominence outside that sector. AdamBiswanger1 14:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as silly. -999 (Talk) 16:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a humour site. Landolitan 18:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not even close to being encyclopedic material. --angers 22:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. As I understand it, it's some random joke used a couple of times in some magazine hardly anyone in the English speaking world has heard of? -- Steel 23:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "I've never heard of it." isn't an acceptable argument at AFD. But "It has never been documented, in any language." is. Uncle G 00:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Perhaps I shouldn't have worded it that way, and there are plently of things on Wikipedia I have never heard of, but I don't put them all up for deletion on the grounds of "I've never heard of it". I'll strike out that, but it's still a minor (and per above - obscure) joke which is hit by WP:NOT indiscriminate info. -- Steel 01:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete come on. Take this to Uncyclopedia. Stormscape 04:30, 25 July 2006 (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.