Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Cleo (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Geschichte (talk) 08:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Little Cleo
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Notability not established with significant sources for specific name-brand product. Links are where to buy it and a short listicle item among 50 other lures; fails WP:NPRODUCT. Reywas92Talk 23:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 23:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I am only saying neutral cause the article is very notable throughout the internet but the article is disorganized and not much reliable sources are present. HelpingWorld (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A vague "very notable throughout the internet" does not connect with the lack of substantive sources here or found in my searches. Reywas92Talk 15:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 15:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete It's a spoon with a treble hook, they make zillions of these. It's certainly well-known, not sure if it's wiki-worthy. Oaktree b (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - does not meet WP:GNG, not a right fit for Wikipedia - Such-change47 (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete- Yes, as per nom doesn't meet WP:GNG Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article notes: "1) Little Cleo. She was a hootchie-kootchie girl who for 43 years had her dancer’s image stamped on the back of a fishing lure. A New York City songwriter named Charlie Clark saw Little Cleo perform during the 1930s; when he developed this popular spoon with its wiggling, dancing action in 1953, she became its namesake. In 1996 a female employee of a major retailer took offense at the dancer’s image on the lure, and for the sake of newfound political correctness, the image was removed by Acme Tackle of Rhode Island, the current manufacturer. Little Cleo spoons are thick in proportion to their surface area, so they fish relatively deep. This makes them a favorite trout spoon, but in sizes ranging from 1/16 to 11/4 ounce, they’re suitable for everything from panfish to steelhead and stripers."  The article notes: "For 43 years, Little Cleo spoons had the image of an exotic dancer stamped on the back. The spoons were first introduced in 1953 by the Seneca Tackle Co. in New York, which was started two years earlier by a songwriter and music publisher named C.V. “Charlie” Clark. He named the spoons the “Little Cleo” after a woman he watched perform in the 1930s. Clark believed the wiggling and dancing of the lure would bewitch the fish much like Little Cleo’s dance had mesmerized him."  The article notes: "18 Little Cleo. This is a great all-around spoon that I find myself using most often forcasting in a trout pond or lake. The comparatively thick body means it fisheswell at medium depths. Most important, though, my favorite ¼-ounce, hammered brass-and-red version sinks quickly as I wait and then wait some more before retrieving. It’s a deadly secret for deep-dwelling brook trout in early summer.acmetackle.com. SPECIES: [TROUT] [SALMON] [STEELHEAD] [SALTWATER]"  The article notes: "• Little Cleo: When Charlie Clark, a songwriter and producer, introduced this lure in 1953, he named it after an exotic dancer he had watched perform. He thought the spoon had the same mesmerizing moves as the dancer. A likeness of a scantily clad dancer was even printed on the back of the original spoons. It was removed years later after Clark’s company was sold to Acme and the latter business received complaints from a female employee of a major retailer."  The article notes: "The Little Cleo is considered a classic and still being sold, but no longer with the dancing girl's image stamped on the back, except in a collector's edition kit."</li> <li> The article notes: "1. LITTLE CLEO: A spoon first made in 1953. A favorite trout spoon, but suitable for everything from panfish to striped bass. For 43 years, the spoon had an image of a dancing girl stamped on the back before it was removed in 1996 when a retailer complained." The article says Field & Stream is the source.</li> <li> The book notes: "Acme's Little Cleo quickly became a favorite when salmon fishing ignited in the Great Lakes almost 30 years ago, and it remains a favorite of many trout and salmon fans there. Its hump-back shape makes it wiggle through the water like a fat bait fish—a meal big fish just can't resist."</li> <li> The book notes on page 198: "Salmon not only strike bait, but also on occasion lures. Two of the most popular ones in this region are the Hotshot and Little Cleo. The book notes on page 200, "As for the Little Cleos, you will see them fished where anglers have a large concentration of salmon swimming around in a pocket of water in a non-snatching section (such as beneath the power plant in the Oswego River). Here, fishermen cast Cleos with rather low expectations of a salmon actually chasing and striking the lure. ..."</li> <li> The article notes: "These baits come in a crazy number of shapes, but we’ll narrow our selection to one of the most popular choices: the Acme Little Cleo. ♦ CONSTRUCTION: Although the paint will become chipped and the hook will need to be replaced from time to time, this bait is basically indestructible."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Little Cleo to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * I rewrote the article with these sources. Cunard (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per the evidence links above, and per DYK check says this article was 5X expanded on December 19, 2021. When nominated here on December 7, it was just one small paragraph with one source, that seemed somewhat non-notable. I think it's notable enough now to keep. — Maile  (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep the sources above are significant. I would not have assumed that different types of fishing lures would need their own pages, but this one looks informative and well sourced. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.