Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fifi hook

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 speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fifi hook

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was original research when it was posted in 2007. It includes text copied from [[1]]. It has been tagged for references since 2013. PROD was removed without improvement. It is a dictionary definition. It could as easily be called skyhook. Ten years is too long to claim, "There is a reference; someone will fix it soon." Rhadow (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn -- Keep -- issues all rectified. Rhadow (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page cited as the source of the text is dated 2008 and so that was presumably a {{backwards copy}} and so that's not a reason to delete. The subject is a notable piece of equipment like a crampon or piton and we don't delete these. Andrew D. (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Crampon has four references. Piton has seven. This one has none. Rhadow (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, given the number of ghits it appears to be a standard piece of climbing equipment, the Alpinist has an indepth article on it here including the history/development of the hook that also refers to a couple of books that talk of them, so its a keep from me. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With a simple WP:BEFORE style search, I was easily able to add the Alpinist ref above and three book refs to the article. This is a standard piece of equipment used in aid climbing, different than a skyhook, and is described in multiple reliable sources sufficient to pass WP:GNG. The nominator really should take more care to perform a proper WP:BEFORE search before wasting other editors' time. --Mark viking (talk) 04:52, 22 September 2017 (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.