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. I concur with the consensus for keep. Improve please! If you want mergers, discuss on talk page. Missvain (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lobster hook

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been unsourced since 2006. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coin945 (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See this advertisement. Or any scuba diver will tell you that lobster hooks exist. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into hook until enough content has been developed on the subject to merit a separate article. BD2412 T 17:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a total failure of our rule against dictionary definitions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lobster hooks are common and widely known of: we need some sort of page to say what they are. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, sources added. SailingInABathTub (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the three sources which have been added to the article since nomination; I do not see any notability issue here. Wikipedia does not have a rule against articles about things that describe what they are. Should we delete hammer and wrench? jp×g 08:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lobster fishing. That will allow us to have a much better discussion in context of the issues of development over time and regional differences in the thing. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we do not need articles on every item used in various activities. So I think a redirect to lobster fishing would serve this issue much better.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My search on Google Books turns up some solid sources, including:^[1]^[2]^[3] There are more recent sources as well that were only available in snippet view. These sources go beyond passing mentions or basic definitions of lobster hooks; they include detailed descriptions and commentary on how to use them, so I think the tool meets WP:GNG and WP:WORDISSUBJECT. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "The Unsung Sport of Lobster-Spearing". The Illustrated American. August 14, 1897. p. 203.
^ John Bickerdyke (1895). Sea Fishing. London: Longmans, Green, and Company. p. 305.
^ John Bickerdyke (1898). Practical Letters to Young Sea Fishers. London: Horace Cox. p. 216.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: additional sources should be discussed, if they remain unchallenged consensus is "keep".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:37, 29 April 2021 (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.