Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bird course
Jump to navigation Jump to search
- Slang dictdef. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
- Extremely limited usage, as far as I can tell. As a UKian, I don't know to what extent this really is used in the US, but "bird course" gets 722 Google hits, which break down to
- "early bird" (early course registration, courses meeting early in the morning, early in a semester, etc.) (145 hits)
- golf courses (255 hits)
- taxidermy courses (20 hits)
- bird-watching courses (57 hits)
- ... leaving a maximum of 245 hits for this usage. If it really has been in use for 30 years (I was unable to verify this) and was "popularised by the movie 'Sister Act II' in 1993", I'd expect somewhat more.
- No potential to become encyclopaedic: the only expansion I could imagine would be to list "bird courses", but this would be extremely PoV and subject to continual change.
Pnot 22:42, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not a dictionary. -- Sortior 22:55, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete dictdef --fvw* 23:10, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
- Delete: Completely useless. Yet another, "I heard a joke, and I want to make an article about it" article. By far, the more common names for it are "crip class" and "bum class" (classes for cripples and bums). Geogre 00:59, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I think it'd be a rare American or Canadian student that didn't know the term, but that's still a dictdef, so delete. — mendel ☎ 01:19, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Really? I must not have kept up. Geogre 05:10, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I'm familiar with the term, but "gut" is more common, or at least was in the 1970s. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:55, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that I believe it was used in the 1970s: the original version surmised that "Sister Act II" coined the term, and the 1970s edit was made a week later from an IP very close to the original author's. To me, that looks like inventing plausible history to prop up notability, although this is something that more usually happens after an article's been listed on VfD... sorry, this is all somewhat irrelevant to the matter at hand, and of course I should be assuming good faith on the author's part. Pnot 03:41, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence of notability in sight. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:04, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)