Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of collective nouns for birds


 * 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, huge amount of sourcing available, i.e. ,, and which is sourced against Webster's/OED. Appears to conform with WP:SAL. E LIMINATOR JR  23:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

List of collective nouns for birds

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

List of collective noun definitions. Without sources. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 13:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki those that can be sourced to Wiktionary. Delete the rest. Will (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary- that's what it is there for Lurker  (said · done) 17:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the article but delete everything that doesn't have a source. This article is better suited to an encyclopedia than a dictionary (in a dictionary, what would you look up to find this entry??).  It's a valid list - it's just unsourced.  I'm guessing 75% of this stuff could be sourced, and it's no great loss to ditch the rest.  --Hyperbole 07:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it all. The intro says that the book An Exaltation of Larks is a source -- I do not know if it is the source for all of them, but it is a start. We do not just blindly delete because sources are not immediately available or present. I also do not agree with transwiki-ing. My experience there is limited, but I have never seen a list of this sort there. They prefer to post every word individually, which would defeat the purpose of the list. --Fang Aili talk 14:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The book mentioned is a general discussion of exactly this topic and is quite sufficient for notability of the topic of the whole. It probably is the source for them all, but these are editing details--theeare many other sources DGG (talk) 08:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an annotated list of closely-related words, otherwise known as a "glossary", as permitted by the stand-alone list guideline. Strong keep if Wiktionary does not accept such lists, which would prove that it does not fail WP:NOT. Also, this should be kept per the WP:CONSENSUS of hundreds of editors who have contributed to all of the collective nouns lists since 2001, most of whom are not being heard from in these discussions. DHowell 03:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per DHowell. Mathmo Talk 23:18, 7 August 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.