Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shyster (fishing lure)


 * 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 delete. ✗ plicit  23:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Shyster (fishing lure)

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

This is a specific trademarked product, not a general "kind of lure". Notability not established with substantive sources (links are mere passing mentions), nor can I find any about it, fails WP:NPRODUCT. Reywas92Talk 21:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. Reywas92Talk 23:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: listed at WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing as requested by the project.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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?
 * That is it – zero significant coverage, just mere passing mentions. Sheer insanity. Reywas92Talk 05:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * You are wrong. Reywas92Talk 15:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We disagree. Editors are free to disagree.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 05:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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. MB 14:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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. Reywas92Talk 14:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per above as this is just a brand which is NN. MB 15:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, wouldn't a rename, redirect, and edit be a better solution?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * 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. Levivich 15:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Delete per nom. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per others; if there was more to say than just the very general text of this article, it would probably be here already. Daniel Case (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete and I urge to bring their understanding of significant coverage into closer alignment with community norms. Cullen328 (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Then please change the wording of WP:SIGCOV to match "community norms"--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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.  Maybe someone can find enough information about them to make an article and mention their popular lure there.   D r e a m Focus  14:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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. Star   Mississippi  21:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2021 (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.