Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploding bird

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. PhilKnight (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding bird[edit]

WP:OR. Even if instances of birds exploding are mentioned in the media, there are no sources to support the claim that "exploding birds" are an encyclopedic subject. Also even if not OR, it fails WP:N Protonk (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until page has been properly reference. Then Keep. If this article gets deleted would that mean that all the other "Exploding" animal articles should be proded aswell? – Jerry^teps 04:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. It would mean that this article would be deleted. Nothing more. Each AfD is a discussion on the article on its merits. If there are other "exploding animal" articles (aside from the exploding whale article, which is well referenced), you may improve them or nominate them yourself if you feel so inclined. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Protonk (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nom is correct: the article is filled with OR and the topic does not appear to exist as a coherent subject discussed by any reliable sources as a distinct subject. Nsk92 (talk) 04:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only consists of original research and popular culture section. JIP | Talk 06:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A more than 3 year old article with lots of WP:OR and little WP:RS Artene50 (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2008 (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.