Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hookset

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The result was Withdrawn per improvements by Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hookset

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:DICDEF, completely untouched since 2006. Prod declined without comment. Search for sources finds only places advertising hooksets, or uses of the word "hookset" that have nothing to do with fishing. Google even asks me if I meant "hooksett" instead. I'm not doubting that these do exist, but as it stands this is just a dicdef and unlikely to expand beyond that. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. Jdcomix (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination seems to misrepresent the nature of the topic. A hookset is not something that you buy; it's a technique used at a critical point in angling – when the fish takes the bait, you pull or lash the line to ensure that the hook is set in the fish's mouth; otherwise it will just release the bait and escape. Now, as angling is one of the most popular particpation sports, you'd expect this to be covered in detail in sources and so it proves. For example, see this book, which has a chapter on the topic. So, the nomination's claim that there's nothing to be found is false. The claim that this is a dictionary definition is likewise false. The article is nothing like a dictionary definition and the policy WP:DICDEF goes to some length to explain the key differences,
One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written; another is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead users to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent.

So, the relevant policy here is not WP:DICDEF. Instead, the applicable policies include WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NOTPAPER;WP:PRESERVE and, of course, WP:BITE. Andrew D. (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: I don't even see the word "hookset" anywhere in the source you linked. The first 10+ sources I found on Google Books all relate to a mathematical term, not a fishing one. After that, I see sources using the word, but not explaining what it actually is. It's possible for a word to see extensive use but not have any purpose as a Wikipedia article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That source starts by using the phrase "setting the hook" which is given in the article's lead as a synonym. In the source's second paragraph, it starts "A successful hook set starts when you tie your fly ...". WP:DICDEF starts by explaining that " In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by". In other words, if there is some variation in spelling or phrasing of a title, we still cover the topic under a single heading, based on its meaning. When you look for sources, you have to take such variations into account. But, there are, in any case, plenty of angling sources which use the word hookset spelt as we have it in the title. Andrew D. (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If there are "plenty of sources", where are they? I see this all the time: people say "keep, there are sources" but make zero attempt to prove it. So far you've found one, which is a start (although I still don't think it conveys notability). Do you have anything else? Because the fact that Google keeps autocorrecting it to "hooksett" suggests that it's not a particularly common term. WP:BURDEN is your call now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1≠0. I haven't fished for many years and so everything I'm telling you about the topic comes from what I've read in the numerous sources which I have browsed. I listed that particular source because it has a separate headed chapter about the topic which is visible in preview. Even then, the nominator was unable to grasp that it covered the topic. The nominator has a long history of failing to find sources and then expecting others to do the work required by WP:BEFORE:
The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects.

Andrew D. (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working to improve this. I saw the template you placed on the talk page, and clicked several of the links. As I said, the GBooks link gave me several results that have nothing to do with fishing, and even asked "did you mean 'hooksett'?" Regular Google gives me several things called hookset (and again asks me if I meant "Hooksett" instead), including "Hookset Automotive", "Hookset Marine", etc., along with a bunch of fishing forums which are not reliable sources. I did do a WP:BEFORE before prodding, which included Google, GNews, and GBooks, and found nothing. I'll say it again: what else have you found that I haven't? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

here are a couple from a quick (30 second) gsearch (no i didn't check whether they are wikiuseable just showing that the term is used for a type of fishing technique), "Fly Fishing Strategies — Plan for the Hookset", "The surest way of achieving the maximum hook-setting and barb burying power is to ensure that at the time the rod is swung back for the 'strike' everything in the system is tight to the hook. ..." - discussed about halfway down the page, so it looks like a regular term that will appear in fishing books? Coolabahapple (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and perhaps move to Hook set as that seems to be the more common way of spelling when I searched for sources. Books on fishing devote quite a bit to techniques for setting the hook. [1], [2], and [3] are some of them. - Whpq (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq: Those sources use the term, but don't define it or imbue any sense of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew Davidson. WP:BEFORE was not followed. Passes WP:SIGCOV. A page move to hook set is probably wise.4meter4 (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.