Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fast-Fish and Loose-Fish


 * 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   merge to Moby-Dick. Black Kite (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Fast-Fish and Loose-Fish

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. Tchaliburton (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And not a very well-written one. The whole thing is quite unclear, so ESSAY right now is an appropriate guide for deletion. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I am finding some sources that discuss this concept and show that the idea of this theme (and its specific chapter) is taught in classes, but so far I'm undecided on whether or not it needs its own individual article as opposed to a mention in an existing subsection or a separate subsection by itself. I'd have to really go through the sources to see how much it is mentioned, but it does deserve a mention somewhere. What I can say is that this would need to almost be completely re-written for clarity if we do decide to make it into its own article. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   01:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge selected information to Moby-Dick and redirect. This is a specific theme that is taught and highlighted in various classrooms, but I'm somewhat against this having its own individual section outside of the main article for the book. This can really be boiled down to a few sentences about how the entire chapter and theme is a metaphor for various property laws and for the idea of nature favoring the strong. Anything more than that would run dangerously close to be original research and while I do think that there is potential merit in having an article that deals specifically on the themes in Moby-Dick, this article isn't really the right way to do it. Even with my cleaning it still has some serious issues and it really needs the touch of someone familiar with the work or more familiar with how these terms are used- especially in the legal world, as these terms/concepts seem to be of particular importance there. This technically has enough sourcing to argue for its own article, but I still somewhat think that this would do best as a merge and redirect. I would, however, argue that the history be left intact so someone can improve this if they choose to do so. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   02:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do not delete. As a plausible redirect to Moby Dick, this article is not eligible for deletion (WP:R). Dozens of results in GBooks. James500 (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well... the article is actually eligible for deletion because it exists as an article at this point in time and the argument here is whether or not the concept is really notable enough to remain as an article independent of the main article for the book. The thing is, an article can be deleted and then a redirect created after the fact. Or the AfD can close as "redirect with history". Just arguing for the article to remain because it could potentially redirect to the main article isn't really an argument for inclusion. I can't tell if you're arguing for a "redirect with history" or if you're arguing to keep the article in question since you aren't really properly citing policy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As I explained at the AfD for A Throne of Bones, if the page name is a plausible redirect, the only way the page could be deleted is if the entire page history meets the criteria for revision deletion, otherwise the worst possible result is a BLAR. I haven't decided whether the article should be kept or redirected, only that I can't see any grounds for deletion. I would have thought that it was obvious that "do not delete" means "keep or merge". James500 (talk) 09:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily- you have to understand that nowadays the argument "do not delete" or "not valid for deletion" is almost always used by people to argue that an article be kept "as is", meaning that it not be deleted and not redirected. In many cases it's used by people who came into an article without any real prior Wikipedia experience. Whatever the term used to mean or was used in the past, in my experience this is used almost solely by people arguing for an article to be kept, no deletions and no redirects. That's why I asked for further explanation, because with that in mind it seemed like you had been arguing for the article to have been kept based on the then current sourcing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Used to mean? The literal meaning of that expression has not changed and cannot change just because some people either don't understand the difference between deletion and redirection or can't speak English properly. James500 (talk) 00:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep. The article is loaded with good references and has clearly been discussed a good deal in its own right. Everyking (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Request move: to Fast-Fish and Loose-Fish (law), and if that is not within the scope of an Afd then Merge to '"Moby Dick".
 * Comments: The title name is about a sentence in a chapter in a particular book. If we are going to separate the two then we must show autonomy by delineation (Notability) because it is not inherited. Do we have Fast-Fish and Loose-Fish (Moby Dick) or Fast-Fish and Loose-Fish (law)? There is the references in the article: #1)- Law: "JSTOR", #2)- Need a "VCU eID", #3)- Not a good reference, #4)- Law: "Concise Introduction to Property Law", #5)- Law: "Vermont Law Review" (“He who has got it gets to keep it..." p.47), #6)- About the book; "The Book as Artefact, Text and Border", #7)- About the book?, #8)- Law: Melville's Bibles; "The question of possession", #9)- Either: "No, I am not a loose-fish and neither are you". Suggested references by Tokyogirl79. #1)- About the book: but does present information about Dead white men, #2)- About the book: not a great reference, #3)- Law: who owns the baseball, #4)- N/A: Same as 5 above, #5)- Law: "Concise Introduction to Property Law", #6)- N/A: Included above, #7) N/A: Same as 8 above, #8)- Not a good reference.
 * The references: The vast majority point to the title as viewed from the standpoint of "Law". It does not matter if this is wording from a particular book. That can be shown in the lead. Otr500 (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.