Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trout Bum


 * 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 of the debate was keep (no consensus). It is a bit difficult to count the votes here, because the creator first wanted it kept, then said "might as well delete it". One person has called for a redirect, but I don't know where such a list might be. One called for moving this to Wiktionary, something which I think is entirely unworkable. Regarding whether or not this phrase is a neologism, I note that the term has very many Google hits from a variety of websites. My count sets this at something around 6d-3k, and with a debate like this I am not comfortable calling anything else than a no consensus result. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Trout Bum
Was nominated for speedy but isn't really a speedy candidate. Was then PRODded, but tag was removed. So I'm bringing it here: it's a non-notable neologism. Please delete it. Angr/ talk 20:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as nn-neologism. I happened across this page before as I saw the user who created it was linking it from different places on Wikipedia, but it didn't occur to me at the time to check it out. JHMM13 (T | C) [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px| ]] [[Image:Flag of Germany.svg|25px|  ]] 20:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Book published in 1986 by Simon and Schuster, ISBN 0671644130, held in over 300 libraries per Worldcat database. Thatcher131 21:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I created it. Angr has been pretty persistent in trying to get it deleted but it really is a notable entry and it does not qualify as a neologism (new concept).  I am a professional flyfishing writer and I put this up here because it really is a definitive term in flyfishing.  To be a "trout bum" is to be one totally dedicated to the sport.  Since Gierach's book debuted the term has entered the entire flyfishing lexicon.  The Trout Bum Tournament is even sponsored by Fly Rod and Reel magazine (not the outfit I write for). Googling "trout bum" returns 68,000 hits.  The fact that Angr is not aware of the term doesn't mean it isn't viable - this merely speaks to his personal ignorance of it; a problem which would be remedied were it to be included. Zach Matthews  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.197.117 (talk • contribs)
 * Zach, since you may not see this comment if I post it elsewhere, please log into your account when you post, and sign your comments with 4 tildes ( ~ ). Thatcher131 21:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I have you on that. ZachMatthews 21:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment If this is to be kept, it should be moved to trout bum (lowercase). (I'm not moving it myself, though, because I'm not sure how moving a page might affect the deletion process.) Ruakh 21:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there ever a point at which I can know that the entry has been kept or has been deleted? This is such an arbitrary place - almost everything I've done today has been deleted by someone, which tells me either I don't understand the politics of this thing or there is a group out here more willing than me to be vocal.  I host a strong website dedicated to improving beginning flyfishers' abilities completely free of charge and I meant to add some content here, but I am beginning to believe it is not worth the effort. ZachMatthews 21:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to reply on your User Talk page. Thatcher131 21:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Fly fishing terms are probably off the average wikipedian's radar, but 50,000 google hits seems to show that it's reasonably notable.  I'd prefer if the article read less like OR, but it's worth having. Night Gyr 21:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What is OR? I can certainly correct it. ZachMatthews 22:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * OR = original research. Please read No original research. Angr/ talk 22:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. Regarding the question of notability - I read the wiki definition (thanks Thatcher).  It seems to me that the line of notability is crossed when a term eclipses the "narrow" understanding of a target group and begins to be known by a mass audience.  Flyfishermen are definitionally a rather large target group, with industry numbers projecting around 2,000,000 flyfishers in the US alone.  However, if the test is to be whether the term has exceeded the bounds of the field, please look at local news sites: http://www.yakima-herald.com/page/dis/329491691747867 (Google '"trout bum" news), or even large sporting outfits like ESPN: http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/fishing/news/story?page=f_fea_CO_ski-n-fish05_L.Burkhead. ZachMatthews 22:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable neologism. -- Krash (Talk) 00:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a neologism but non-notable? From The Seattle Times, Febuary 7, 2006, Pg. D9, "Having a trout bum around is kind of like having a Labrador retriever around the house, if you don't get them outside regularly, they get squirrelly and start to stink. I needed to air it out. Randal Sumner was on the phone saying the magic words, "Super secret fly, lots of big fish, let's go."  About 50 Lexis/Nexis hits in the past 5 years. Thatcher131 01:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So ~10 hits per year? That sounds not notable to me. At least when compared to other neologisms like Dittohead or Chindia or Dubbya. -- Krash (Talk) 01:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I have fished from Maine to California and never heard this neologism nor I have seen the magazine mentioned in the the link sold anywhere. I don't doubt it exists just that it's not notable enough for an encyclopedia.--71.31.40.206 02:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * May as well delete it. This isn't worth trying to convince a bunch of people over, especially non-fishermen.  Please delete it; Wikipedia clearly isn't as open as it seemed.ZachMatthews 01:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep If it's notable, (and it seems it is) then what's the big deal? What good comes from deleting it? Homestarmy 02:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and move to Wiktionary. Nothing more than a phrase. J.J.Sagnella 16:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, I think this would be better served as an article on the book with a note on the phrase, rather than the other way round. Mallocks 20:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect - Its just a slang term. Redirect to proper slang list. Tutmosis 14:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism and author's request. Ifnord 18:38, 12 March 2006 (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.