Talk:Chestnut-backed thrush

Status of article

How can a species of bird not be notable? It needs expanding, not deleting. Ridiculous nomination. Nick mallory 09:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't notable, I said it lacked context. There is no information on the page other than its endangered status -- no description of the bird, no discussion of its migratory patterns or behavior, nothing on its eating habits, etc. Further, there are peacock words and personal opinion on the page, as is mentioned on the author's talk page. -FeralDruid 09:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If you disagree, that's perfectly fine. Switch it to {{wikify}} and {{peacock}}, and stub it. Note that there are a number of other articles in the author's contribs which contain equally insufficient information -- perhaps they should all be flagged {{wikify}}: Red and Blue Lory, Hooded Pitta (which describes where they're kept in London and New Jersey, which really doesn't make sense to me), Chestnut-capped Thrush, and Red-billed Curassow (which is stubbed, but basically says little other than that this bird exists and lives in Brazil). -FeralDruid 09:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, admins Tone and the wub have stubbed and edit the article, removing the peacock terms and personal opinion. I'm going to flag Red and Blue Lory and Chestnut-capped Thrush as well, as they're currently just paragraphs of text. -FeralDruid 10:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a big difference between an article which can be improved and one which merits speedy deletion. Nick mallory 11:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)