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.
Does not appear to meet
Standalone lists ~ Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value ~ in that it is enormously broad, not specific enough, and fairly incapable of completeness. A realistic argument could be made for including both
wings and
foreign object damage, which don't really have enough of a link; happy days, LindsayHello 16:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete Per nom. Was expecting a little more than this junk when I clicked on it...
Reywas92Talk 17:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete definitely per nom. Talk about overly broad and vague (plus a search term no one in their right mind would ever use). --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs) 18:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Way to broad of a list to the point of being meaningless. I also agree it's a wack search term that no one is going to use. Maybe if it was based on some academic thing or something, but it isn't. I totally thought it would be though. --
Adamant1 (
talk) 19:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, the current collection is wacky and implausible. A full list of avian related phenomena and incidents would be overly broad.--Eostrix (
🦉 hoothoot🦉) 13:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Perhaps there is special providence in the fall of a sparrow, but this list just can't take flight.
XOR'easter (
talk) 06:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete For now. If there is any potential to create this in future then it can go through draft.
Orientls (
talk) 18:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)reply
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.