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.
keep widely used lure and well documented in third party sources, passes
WP:GNG. I felt compelled to add a few more sources. Any trademark issues can be handled in editing--although I find it hard to beleive that the
Rapala company holds that trademark since it was started in 1971 and the lure was reported used as far back as the 1950s and there's no link on the company page to this lure. That could be an oversight. Some confirmation may be in order.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
22:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)reply
This is risible. "These include some of my favorites like the Mepps Aglia, the Panther Martin Spinner, Worden’s Rooster Tail and the Luhr Jensen Shyster." and "'My favs from the 1950s include the Glen Evans Co., Shyster, Fred Arbogast’s Hula Popper and the Wood Mfg. Co. Deep-R-Doodle.' Doug went on to say: 'The Shyster caught schooling fish, the Deep-R-Doodle caught anything with scales in Keg Creek and other secret areas and the Hula Popper caught largemouths feeding in the shallows far back in the coves.'" This is not adequate for an article; why is the concept of significant coverage so difficult? Glen L. Evans Inc. had the trademark
1972–1982, and Luhr Jenson has owned it
since 1987. Rapala appears to just be the retailer here.
Reywas92Talk23:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)reply
On
WP:SIGCOV: For me, I just go to directly to the guideline and read it. The gideline is clear: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. There are mutliple sources that have provided the detail so the article can be created without any original research. The standard
WP:SIGCOV is met and quotes in this discussion prove that. I don't know, maybe you think that the detail provided are only "trivial mentions" but that's not the case (certainly not for every source provided), There's enough to create the article from multiple sources.here's enough to create the article from multiple sources.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
02:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)reply
How the hell is "I quickly caught several using a 1/8-ounce Luhr-Jensen Shyster, a small spinner." significant coverage?
How the hell is "These include some of my favorites like the Mepps Aglia, the Panther Martin Spinner, Worden’s Rooster Tail and the Luhr Jensen Shyster." more than a trivial mention?
How the hell does "I’ll bet a week’s wages that the perch will strike a 1/8-ounce spinnerbait or an inline spinner, such as a white or chartreuse Roostertail or Shyster" address the topic directly and in detail?
How the hell is "My favs from the 1950s include the Glen Evans Co., Shyster, Fred Arbogast’s Hula Popper and the Wood Mfg. Co. Deep-R-Doodle." significant coverage?
Because it meets the standard in
WP:SIGCOV by provididing the detail to write the article without original research. I'm sorry that you don't like it and that it makes you angry.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
13:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Those quotes are the epitome of passing mentions -- it is difficult to mention something while saying less about it. --
JBL (
talk)
14:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)reply
I disagree. The word is used once or twice, but the articles are about fishing and fishing lures so there's no real need to keep repeating the word in the source articles. If the article was (as a "made-up example") about the life of an attorney and it mentioned that at retirement one client gave him a gift of a "shyster" then that would be a passing or trivial mention. That's not the case with these articles. And there are many more (both online and offline), these are just a few that happen to be put in the article.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
15:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Paulmcdonald: I hope you will pardon this long and personalized comment, because I think it would be good to be clear about why your behavior here is so incredibly frustrating. Here is how the discussion went: R says, "I have found all discussion in all the sources about this topic, here it is: [list of a bunch of passing mentions]." You contradict, with no argument (just assertion). I say, "Those are obviously passing mentions." You now say "The word is used once or twice, but the articles are about fishing and fishing lures so there's no real need to keep repeating the word in the source articles." Please observe that this is a completely different assertion from your earlier (plainly false) assertions: you've shifted the goal-posts from "those trivial mentions are actually substantive" to "the articles contain separate substantive content on this topic, beyond what was quoted". However, even in the shift, you haven't made any attempt to provide an argument that could possibly be convincing to another person. If you are right that there is substantive coverage of this particular lure in one of those articles, you should be able to say what is the substantive thing it says, either by quoting or paraphrasing. The fact is that all you've done is make assertions without evidence, and moreover you've changed what you're asserting without acknowledging that. Those kinds of behaviors are deeply frustrating to anyone trying to have a discussion with you. --
JBL (
talk)
12:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Fishing lure. If there were significant coverage in the four sources used in the article, one would expect the article be longer than one-two sentences. As an
WP:ATD, this can be merged into the
Fishing lure where there is a list and the redirect would enable anyone looking for info on this lure to find what we have. Not enough for a stand-alone article.
MB14:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)reply
This is a single specific product, not a type of lure, and does not belong in the list on the main article. It seems to fall under the spinnerbait type, among of course dozens of other products.
Reywas92Talk14:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete (came here from ANI) - not a notable product due to lack of significant coverage. One sentence is not significant coverage. Not even worth a redirect - we don't create pages about brand name products and redirect them to the generic category because Wikipedia is
WP:NOTPROMO.
Levivich15:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete: Good freaking grief. Those aren't merely casual mentions; those are bloody namedrops. Any editor who not only looks at those sources and claims that they constitute
WP:SIGCOV but takes it to ANI needs both a serious lesson in what constitutes SIGCOV -- of which these brief mentions are the very definition of trivial mention -- and a troutslap into the bargain.
Ravenswing 17:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - The sources included in the article are simply passing mentions with no actual coverage that could be said passes the
WP:GNG. Searching for any additional sources turns up nothing more substantial. As it is just a non-notable product, merging or redirecting it anywhere would not be appropriate.
Rorshacma (
talk)
18:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment The Shyster lure by the Glenn L. Evans Company does get ample reviews in places, but they are rather short mentions. Just not a lot to write about for a fishing lure it seems. Seems to have been a rather popular item. The New York Times says the company was a major lure manufacturer once.
[1] Maybe someone can find enough information about them to make an article and mention their popular lure there.
DreamFocus14:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete what's provided above and what I found through further above does not rise to the amount of significant coverage required for a product. Not a Directory also applies. StarMississippi21:34, 10 December 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.
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.
keep widely used lure and well documented in third party sources, passes
WP:GNG. I felt compelled to add a few more sources. Any trademark issues can be handled in editing--although I find it hard to beleive that the
Rapala company holds that trademark since it was started in 1971 and the lure was reported used as far back as the 1950s and there's no link on the company page to this lure. That could be an oversight. Some confirmation may be in order.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
22:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)reply
This is risible. "These include some of my favorites like the Mepps Aglia, the Panther Martin Spinner, Worden’s Rooster Tail and the Luhr Jensen Shyster." and "'My favs from the 1950s include the Glen Evans Co., Shyster, Fred Arbogast’s Hula Popper and the Wood Mfg. Co. Deep-R-Doodle.' Doug went on to say: 'The Shyster caught schooling fish, the Deep-R-Doodle caught anything with scales in Keg Creek and other secret areas and the Hula Popper caught largemouths feeding in the shallows far back in the coves.'" This is not adequate for an article; why is the concept of significant coverage so difficult? Glen L. Evans Inc. had the trademark
1972–1982, and Luhr Jenson has owned it
since 1987. Rapala appears to just be the retailer here.
Reywas92Talk23:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)reply
On
WP:SIGCOV: For me, I just go to directly to the guideline and read it. The gideline is clear: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. There are mutliple sources that have provided the detail so the article can be created without any original research. The standard
WP:SIGCOV is met and quotes in this discussion prove that. I don't know, maybe you think that the detail provided are only "trivial mentions" but that's not the case (certainly not for every source provided), There's enough to create the article from multiple sources.here's enough to create the article from multiple sources.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
02:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)reply
How the hell is "I quickly caught several using a 1/8-ounce Luhr-Jensen Shyster, a small spinner." significant coverage?
How the hell is "These include some of my favorites like the Mepps Aglia, the Panther Martin Spinner, Worden’s Rooster Tail and the Luhr Jensen Shyster." more than a trivial mention?
How the hell does "I’ll bet a week’s wages that the perch will strike a 1/8-ounce spinnerbait or an inline spinner, such as a white or chartreuse Roostertail or Shyster" address the topic directly and in detail?
How the hell is "My favs from the 1950s include the Glen Evans Co., Shyster, Fred Arbogast’s Hula Popper and the Wood Mfg. Co. Deep-R-Doodle." significant coverage?
Because it meets the standard in
WP:SIGCOV by provididing the detail to write the article without original research. I'm sorry that you don't like it and that it makes you angry.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
13:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Those quotes are the epitome of passing mentions -- it is difficult to mention something while saying less about it. --
JBL (
talk)
14:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)reply
I disagree. The word is used once or twice, but the articles are about fishing and fishing lures so there's no real need to keep repeating the word in the source articles. If the article was (as a "made-up example") about the life of an attorney and it mentioned that at retirement one client gave him a gift of a "shyster" then that would be a passing or trivial mention. That's not the case with these articles. And there are many more (both online and offline), these are just a few that happen to be put in the article.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
15:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Paulmcdonald: I hope you will pardon this long and personalized comment, because I think it would be good to be clear about why your behavior here is so incredibly frustrating. Here is how the discussion went: R says, "I have found all discussion in all the sources about this topic, here it is: [list of a bunch of passing mentions]." You contradict, with no argument (just assertion). I say, "Those are obviously passing mentions." You now say "The word is used once or twice, but the articles are about fishing and fishing lures so there's no real need to keep repeating the word in the source articles." Please observe that this is a completely different assertion from your earlier (plainly false) assertions: you've shifted the goal-posts from "those trivial mentions are actually substantive" to "the articles contain separate substantive content on this topic, beyond what was quoted". However, even in the shift, you haven't made any attempt to provide an argument that could possibly be convincing to another person. If you are right that there is substantive coverage of this particular lure in one of those articles, you should be able to say what is the substantive thing it says, either by quoting or paraphrasing. The fact is that all you've done is make assertions without evidence, and moreover you've changed what you're asserting without acknowledging that. Those kinds of behaviors are deeply frustrating to anyone trying to have a discussion with you. --
JBL (
talk)
12:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Fishing lure. If there were significant coverage in the four sources used in the article, one would expect the article be longer than one-two sentences. As an
WP:ATD, this can be merged into the
Fishing lure where there is a list and the redirect would enable anyone looking for info on this lure to find what we have. Not enough for a stand-alone article.
MB14:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)reply
This is a single specific product, not a type of lure, and does not belong in the list on the main article. It seems to fall under the spinnerbait type, among of course dozens of other products.
Reywas92Talk14:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete (came here from ANI) - not a notable product due to lack of significant coverage. One sentence is not significant coverage. Not even worth a redirect - we don't create pages about brand name products and redirect them to the generic category because Wikipedia is
WP:NOTPROMO.
Levivich15:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete: Good freaking grief. Those aren't merely casual mentions; those are bloody namedrops. Any editor who not only looks at those sources and claims that they constitute
WP:SIGCOV but takes it to ANI needs both a serious lesson in what constitutes SIGCOV -- of which these brief mentions are the very definition of trivial mention -- and a troutslap into the bargain.
Ravenswing 17:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - The sources included in the article are simply passing mentions with no actual coverage that could be said passes the
WP:GNG. Searching for any additional sources turns up nothing more substantial. As it is just a non-notable product, merging or redirecting it anywhere would not be appropriate.
Rorshacma (
talk)
18:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment The Shyster lure by the Glenn L. Evans Company does get ample reviews in places, but they are rather short mentions. Just not a lot to write about for a fishing lure it seems. Seems to have been a rather popular item. The New York Times says the company was a major lure manufacturer once.
[1] Maybe someone can find enough information about them to make an article and mention their popular lure there.
DreamFocus14:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete what's provided above and what I found through further above does not rise to the amount of significant coverage required for a product. Not a Directory also applies. StarMississippi21:34, 10 December 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.