Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doubleheader (fishing)
- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Doubleheader (fishing) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Page was created 7 September 2010 and immediately tagged for Speedy deletion. This was declined and the creator later added references, which basically are simple examples of the word in use. The talk page claims that it is a widespread term in fishing circles (which may or may not be so), but the Oxford English Dictionary has no angling related reference. In four months, the article has progressed from:
- "A Doubleheader is a fishing term which refers to two fishermen simultaneously catching a fish when fishing together" to
- "A doubleheader is a fishing term which describes two fishermen each catching a fish at the same time. Usually this term is used when one fisherman catches a fish and while he reels it in, a second fisherman catches one too."
It's been tagged as a dicdef since 12 September, and as a dicdef is pretty poor anyway. Now, surely, it's time for this to go. (Like its creator, who has not returned since 8 Sept.) Emeraude (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - At best this is a dictionary definition. -- Whpq (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't we have an article on fishing terminology somewhere that we can merge this into? Also, if it is a correct dicdef, it should be added to wikt:doubleheader. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- If it's a correct dicdef, why isn't it in a dictionary? Emeraude (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 05:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Wiki is not dicionary Someone65 (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2011 (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.