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. Core desat 02:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Squidgies[edit]

Delete as per non-notable activity related to catching fish! -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 23:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also violates WP:OR as it seems that it is a clear case of original research. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 23:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete or merge This could be a section in a larger article on fishing lures, if reliable sources could back it upBeeblbrox (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All information put in the entry is publicly available. There is no original research presented. I would like to link it to various other relevant topics (e.g. fishing lures) but don't know how this is done (being a newbie, I often contribute with editorial changes where I can, but this is the first page I have made from scratch). You'll find all the external links are very relevant to fishing lures in general and especially the new ones coming out on the market which I think are a clear example of technology creep. I also note that Wikipedia does not have an entry for technology creep. User: DigsFish.
Delete I'm sure the author has good intentions as evidenced by the above post. However, the subject seems to fail verifiability, as none of the sources look reliable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unverifiable original research. Mh29255 (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added additional references from easily accessible sources on the web to show that the data included is indeed verifiable, and I reiterate there is no original research included. I guess I'll start looking at adding scientific references if it helps others to understanding the current issues relating to fishing lure development, technology creep and fisheries managementUser: DigsFish. —Preceding comment was added at 00:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm going to assume the best and say this isn't original research, in which case it fails WP:NOT#DIR. I can't see how this could possibly be expanded beyond a dictionary definition. Redfarmer (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge I understand now the context - it would seem to me that it would be most appropriate to merge this topic somehow to the fishing lure definition. I note there is plenty of work to be done linking the various sections on fishing in the encyclopedia. This may be one of them - linking the fishing sections into the effects of fishing section in more areas to alert people of the need for humans to continually redefine the need to regulate their fishing activities. The effects of fishing section certainly needs some work. DigsFish (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2008 (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.