Talk:drone strike

drone strike
It means "a strike by a drone", see User talk:Mglovesfun for further information. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I too support delete. ---&gt; Tooironic 22:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note, while listening to Channel 4 News here in the UK today they spoke of drone attacks. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: plenty of examples of usage in news reports. WritersCramp 23:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC
 * Usage is irrelevant to RfDs. The issue is whether it is idiomatic. See WT:CFI please. DCDuring TALK 02:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please look up idiotmatic WritersCramp 21:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * idiotmatic? We don't have an entry for it. Did you mean idiomatic? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is proven -:) WritersCramp 13:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Trust me, it isn't. I think people would like you to talk about the entry drone strike rather than making accusations towards others' intelligence. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Abstain for now since few things concern me. E.g. requestor mentioned "drone attack" and I'm wondering now whether someone would object to the existence of such an entry, too. I.e. would an entry such as this "drone attack - attack carried out by remotely controlled  aircraft, but not attack of a male bee or wasp" be subjected to deletion for reasons of idiomaticity. I am strongly compelled to believe that this issue might help clear up the correspondent clause of CFI. --Biblbroks 14:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Listed drone attack below to avoid confusion. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

deleted -- Prince Kassad 19:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)