Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squirrel fishing

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 05:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Squirrel fishing[edit]

Squirrel fishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Unsourced, no assertion of notability. —Ocatecir Talk 01:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. A person website, by the fellows who invented this "sport", as per the article. This is not a reliable source, and doesn't support notability
  2. A link to a BBC radio episode - this is a reliable source - however, it clearly states that the "sport" is "unknown". Not a strong endorsement for notability.
  3. A link to an article in a college paper - this also doesn't assert that the topic is notable, though I would be inclined to state that it's reliable.
  4. A link to a compendium of sports - however, this is openly submittable, and merely links back to the first source here.
  5. A unrelated article about "people-fishing" which has nothing to do with this article.
So, I tend to feel that this is not "totally unsourced", but what sourcing exists is very weak, and doesn't endorse notability - nor does the article assert any. I'm inclined to believe this is either a very new, or very minor sport, and thus does not meet notability requirements. Delete - looks like it can be sourced now Keep. Haemo 01:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep (formerly Weak delete) Weak because the BBC radio source is pretty good, but as noted above that's not quite enough just by itself. Update: vote changed due to additional sources found. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a Google News archive search reveals a bunch of additional sources, including one from the Washington Post, that seem to indicate that this frivolous pastime is notable. Krimpet (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, yet silly. Good enough for Harvard so it's okay in my book ;) the_undertow talk 03:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The harvard page is a personal webpage for a Harvard graduate student. If you look at his/her main page here, you can see that he/she is a computer science graduate. The harvard page is obviously for fun, not serious research. —Ocatecir Talk 03:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was quite understood, as one might infer from the 'winky' emoticon. My reason to keep was simply that it is notable, as silly as it is. the_undertow talk 05:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Seems students at Harvard University started the trend in 1997 with a Web site, lately clubs have popped up at the Berkeley, the USC, Oklahoma. Strictly speaking not quite notable enough, but sometimes you've just got to WP:IAR and have a page like this in wikipedia.--Work permit 04:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as patent nonsense. Edison 05:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the Google news search shows sources and notability, but when PETA gets wind of this there will be hell to pay!--killing sparrows (chirp!) 05:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Together with the BBC radio bit, the Google news articles show ample notability. - Mgm|(talk) 10:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch that the language used stays encyclopedic but otherwise I have no problem with it being kept.--Alf melmac 12:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since there seems to be notable sources out there. --ImmortalGoddezz 19:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Humorous commentary on behavior of what are generally suburban, socialized squirrels. I've seen it done. Squirrels are funny. "Sport" is notable for its unconventional nature and the fact that the competition is not against one's self or other humans. Very simple equipment is required to play and it is on the whole non-confrontational as both sides eventually "win." Who wouldn't want to go to Harvard and fish for squirrels. Hopefully some one will tie this in with squirrel risk assessment behavior in another expansion.
  • Comment Arguments like "this is funny" do not satisfy any Wikipedia guidelines or policies for keeping an article. Edison 04:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I didn't say "this is funny;" I said "squirrels are funny." Merely a personal observation. If you had read the opinion in its entirety you'd have read my notability argument along with a valid expansion idea. And guess what? "Delete as patent nonsense" is not a valid argument that satisfies any Wikipedia guidelines or policies for deletion. Aspenocean 08:04, 10 May 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Squirrel_fishing&oldid=1082352629"