244:- 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.
256:– 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.
554:
Neither 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
Knowledge (XXG)*
792:
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
126:
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
217:: 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
280:: 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
427:: 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". —
200:
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.
666:
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
135:, 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). —
322:
196:: 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
221:. 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. —
171:
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
115:
415:
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. -
762:
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
583:
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.
505:
732:. 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
88:
83:
17:
92:
645:
as original research. The references are a bit dodgy at best, and the material in the article represents a synthesis of ideas. --
754:" is not a strong defense, generally, and is a particularly weak one against an AfD that raises other issues, including rampant
75:
447:
684:
819:
36:
539:
245:
818:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
631:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
345:
519:
802:
777:
745:
733:
719:
688:
654:
637:
616:
599:
587:
575:
563:
542:
526:
510:
479:
454:
438:
419:
407:
391:
379:
352:
336:
312:
295:
272:
248:
232:
205:
186:
163:
146:
57:
309:
499:
471:
it.) These are the original research that you are not seeing. Please cite a source that explains the
306:
459:
None of the ones on the first two pages of results, which is as far as I have time to look right now,
404:
596:
156:
729:
218:
625:
572:
559:
is evidence that the exploding head concept is a big deal" for it to be suitable for an entry here.
523:
451:
388:
349:
259:
79:
741:
680:
265:
53:
160:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
668:
769:
711:
430:
371:
332:
287:
224:
178:
138:
361:
281:
172:
123:
798:
700:: Unless you are being ironic, how is this a "keep" !vote, if you note that it is full of
763:
755:
663:
494:
650:
612:
71:
63:
737:
676:
624:
per Hobson. Recreate when sources exist that discuss exploding heads as a concept. -
584:
416:
49:
556:
197:
476:
344:- a nice little article - better than I expected. The nomination just seems to be
109:
560:
328:
794:
202:
646:
608:
461:
actually explain what it is, why it occurs, or the reason that it is a trope
446:
The more usual form of the phrase is "...head explode". Google
Scholar has
159:
which unfortunately will never be deleted it appears due to vote counting.
704:"crap", and the one thing you seem to think is good about the article is
387:
It's a common metaphor. Not seeing the original research or synthesis.
155:
per nom and this time let's not simply count votes. Pure cruft just like
472:
48:. It doesn't have the strength of references to justify its approach.
812:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
571:
pure unadulterated original research as someone just said.
538:- that article and this one are on very different topics.
175:, rather than used as a thwacking stick in another XfD. —
750:
The flip side of that coin is that "it might be sourced
105:
101:
97:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
822:). No further edits should be made to this page.
323:list of Comics and animation-related deletions
8:
788:That's what I've slightly been saying. The
493:per the existence of sources. Cut out the
595:- No indication this is anything but OR.
662:and cleanup. There is a fair amount of
348:which is insufficient reason to delete.
321:: This debate has been included in the
671:discusses) if only it were sourced.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
365:
728:You may want to take a look at
758:. My point above was that the
1:
360:: No, the nom is grounded in
803:05:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
778:06:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
746:06:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
720:05:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
689:23:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
655:18:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
638:00:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
617:23:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
600:17:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
588:06:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
576:00:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
564:20:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
543:18:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
527:15:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
522:which references this one.
511:12:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
480:12:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
455:09:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
439:06:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
420:22:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
408:20:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
392:09:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
380:06:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
353:18:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
337:17:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
313:15:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
296:06:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
273:13:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
249:11:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
233:06:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
206:10:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
187:10:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
164:09:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
147:09:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
122:Such pure and unadulterated
58:17:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
518:We also have an article on
839:
368:in more specific terms. —
815:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
520:Exploding head syndrome
467:the trope. They don't
540:AllGloryToTheHypnotoad
246:AllGloryToTheHypnotoad
793:references for it! --
736:. Hope that helps. -
702:original research
475:of this concept.
364:. I've clarified
335:
326:
271:
124:original research
830:
817:
772:
766:still stands. —
714:
634:
628:
433:
374:
331:
317:
290:
270:
268:
257:
227:
181:
141:
113:
95:
34:
838:
837:
833:
832:
831:
829:
828:
827:
826:
820:deletion review
813:
768:
710:
632:
626:
597:Judgesurreal777
509:
506:r e s e a r c h
429:
370:
346:I don't like it
286:
266:
258:
223:
177:
157:Exploding sheep
137:
86:
70:
67:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
836:
834:
825:
824:
808:
807:
806:
805:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
723:
722:
692:
691:
657:
640:
619:
602:
590:
578:
573:Coccyx Bloccyx
566:
548:
547:
546:
545:
530:
529:
524:Colonel Warden
513:
503:
491:Very weak keep
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
463:. (They just
452:Colonel Warden
410:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
389:Colonel Warden
350:Colonel Warden
339:
315:
305:Per Shoessss.
300:
299:
298:
251:
238:
237:
236:
235:
209:
208:
191:
190:
189:
120:
119:
72:Exploding head
66:
64:Exploding head
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
835:
823:
821:
816:
810:
809:
804:
800:
796:
791:
787:
786:
779:
776:
773:
771:
765:
761:
757:
753:
749:
748:
747:
743:
739:
735:
731:
727:
726:
725:
724:
721:
718:
715:
713:
707:
703:
699:
696:
695:
694:
693:
690:
686:
682:
678:
674:
670:
665:
661:
658:
656:
652:
648:
644:
641:
639:
635:
629:
623:
620:
618:
614:
610:
606:
603:
601:
598:
594:
591:
589:
586:
582:
579:
577:
574:
570:
567:
565:
562:
558:
553:
550:
549:
544:
541:
537:
534:
533:
532:
531:
528:
525:
521:
517:
514:
512:
508:
507:
502:
501:
496:
492:
489:
481:
478:
474:
470:
466:
462:
458:
457:
456:
453:
449:
445:
442:
441:
440:
437:
434:
432:
426:
423:
422:
421:
418:
414:
411:
409:
406:
402:
399:
393:
390:
386:
385:Not persuaded
383:
382:
381:
378:
375:
373:
367:
363:
359:
356:
355:
354:
351:
347:
343:
340:
338:
334:
330:
324:
320:
316:
314:
311:
308:
304:
301:
297:
294:
291:
289:
283:
279:
276:
275:
274:
269:
263:
262:
255:
252:
250:
247:
243:
240:
239:
234:
231:
228:
226:
220:
216:
213:
212:
211:
210:
207:
204:
199:
195:
192:
188:
185:
182:
180:
174:
170:
167:
166:
165:
162:
158:
154:
151:
150:
149:
148:
145:
142:
140:
134:
130:
125:
117:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
814:
811:
789:
774:
767:
759:
751:
716:
709:
705:
701:
697:
672:
659:
642:
621:
604:
592:
580:
568:
551:
535:
515:
504:
498:
490:
468:
464:
460:
443:
435:
428:
424:
412:
400:
384:
376:
369:
357:
341:
318:
302:
292:
285:
277:
260:
253:
241:
229:
222:
214:
193:
183:
176:
168:
161:EconomicsGuy
152:
143:
136:
132:
128:
121:
45:
43:
31:
28:
770:SMcCandlish
734:not cleanup
712:SMcCandlish
607:per Kizor.
450:for this.
431:SMcCandlish
405:RiverHockey
372:SMcCandlish
288:SMcCandlish
242:Strong keep
225:SMcCandlish
179:SMcCandlish
139:SMcCandlish
730:WP:PROBLEM
403:per nom. -
358:Refutation
219:WP:OVERCAT
129:South Park
706:unsourced
133:Red Dwarf
738:Verdatum
698:Question
685:contribs
585:Ridernyc
555:to say "
417:Verdatum
261:Shoessss
116:View log
50:Tyrenius
790:concept
775:‹(-¿-)›
752:someday
717:‹(-¿-)›
669:WP:FICT
536:comment
477:Uncle G
473:Five Ws
469:explain
448:60 hits
444:Comment
436:‹(-¿-)›
425:Comment
377:‹(-¿-)›
293:‹(-¿-)›
278:Comment
230:‹(-¿-)›
184:‹(-¿-)›
144:‹(-¿-)›
89:protect
84:history
643:Delete
622:Delete
593:Delete
581:Delete
569:Delete
561:Hobson
552:Delete
413:Delete
401:Delete
362:WP:NOR
329:Hiding
307:Twenty
303:Delete
282:WP:NOR
254:Delete
173:WP:DRV
153:Delete
93:delete
46:Delete
795:Kizor
764:WP:OR
756:WP:OR
500:h i s
495:WP:OR
366:above
310:Years
267:Chat
215:Reply
203:Kizor
169:Reply
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
799:talk
742:talk
708:? —
681:talk
677:user
664:crap
660:Keep
651:talk
647:Whpq
613:talk
609:Rray
605:Keep
557:this
342:Keep
319:Note
284:. —
198:this
194:Keep
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
760:one
636:),
516:FYI
465:use
327:--
325:.
114:– (
801:)
744:)
687:)
683:•
679:•
673:~a
653:)
615:)
497:.-
264:|
201:--
131:,
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
797:(
740:(
675:(
649:(
633:∅
630:(
627:∅
611:(
333:T
118:)
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.