Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nail knot

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Nail knot}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Nail knot}})

This was prodded with the rationale: "Knot techniques don't have any inherently notable qualities. I see that this particular one has been discussed in many blogs, forums, and other user-generated sources, but nothing approaching the quality needed to be used as a reference on Wikipedia." Deprodded because it is "a pretty well-known knot in fishing". That does not address the reason for prodding or explain why it meets GNG (the infamous Battle for Dream Island is presumably also "pretty well-known"). — Anonymous 03:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Anonymous 03:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:as someone who has little idea about knots even after having ilustrated more than 20 of wikipedias knots i have never seen the wikipedia page on individual knots as a "How to" but more as a reference, knots are named diferently in diferent countries and without an image or an explanation how are you suposed to compare them or understand them enough to know two names refer to same knot, when the author says well known, he means to say the name is coloquial and not official (as far as i understand it) and to be fair something not aproaching the level of quality you personaly think is needed for the wikipedia is no reason to remove it , quite the oposite is a reason to complete it and increase it. sometimes knowledge is not deep, and that doesnt make it less useful. i have recieved hundreds of mails over the years thanking me for this knot pages, from people of all corners of life and all corners of the world. Jusdt have a look how many other wikis link to the image to have an idea how many other nationalities consider this knot worthy of inclusion. and if so many people apreciate what they learned from the tiny wikipedia page i think that knowledge has its own value. seems a bit selfish on your part to just want to delete it becouse you think it is "too simple" so i oppose this removal. -LadyofHats (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::Nothing in this very passionate response explains why this article should be kept according to WP:GNG. Calling contributors selfish is not the best way to win disputes on this site. While I understand you have strong feelings for this page you created and would like to right great wrongs, GNG and WP:AGF still apply. — Anonymous 15:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. It’s arguably one of the most important knots in fly fishing. Instead of deleting the page, editors could work on expanding it with better sources. Books on fly fishing, knot-tying manuals, and historical fishing texts almost certainly reference the nail knot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.206.5 (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Where are these better sources? These types of comments are meaningless in deletion discussions. Before casting a keep vote, you need to find these better sources, if they indeed exist. This is an encyclopedia, not a how-to guide. I would imagine very few knots, no matter how "important" receive coverage warranting the creation of an encyclopedia article. You are more than welcome to include this type of content in a fishing blog or a site like wikiHow. — Anonymous 03:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• I found these:
• https://www.texassaltwaterfishingmagazine.com/fishing/by-type/fly-fishing/staying-connected-the-nail-knot-part-1-2?utm_source=chatgpt.com
• https://castingaround.anthonynaples.com/2011/01/book-review-the-nail-knot-by-john-galligan?utm_source=chatgpt.com
• https://troutbitten.com/2019/03/06/loop-to-loop-is-bad-try-attaching-your-leader-to-the-fly-line-this-way/?utm_source=chatgpt.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.65.62 (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:The first one, from a fishing magazine, seems like a very, very weak source, if it's even usable. Definitely not enough to establish notability by itself. As for the other two, one is a blog, and the other is a commercial site. Clearly, AI still has a long way to go when it comes to finding reliable sources. — Anonymous 16:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• See this New York Times Article: https://www.nytimes.com/1970/12/08/archives/wood-field-and-stream-buyer-who-seeks-reels-should-beware-of.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.76.158.240 (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Take a look at WP:PASSING. Being merely mentioned by a reliable source is not necessarily an indicator of notability. — Anonymous 15:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

{{Reflist-talk}}

• How does this knot differ than all the other knots on List of knots? There is precedent for similar pages.
• Boa knot
• Double fisherman's knot
• Grief knot
• and many many more
• :(Remember to sign your posts in discussions.) See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Notability is determined on a case-by-case basis; just because some subjects pertaining to a topic are notable does not mean that all are (although in this case, I wouldn't be surprised if these other knots do not meet WP:GNG either). — Anonymous 23:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - Meets WP:N and WP:SIGCOV. The article could be expanded, and it needs citations. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• :@Z. Patterson: Can you prove these statements? The comments in this discussion are honestly baffling; I don't think I've ever seen an AfD like this. Once again, if you're going to make these claims, you should actually demonstrate this alleged coverage. (I've already pointed out issues with the sources previously brought here.) I would have no issue with being proven wrong and discovering that this knot is indeed notable, but these repeated claims that this article deserves to be kept without providing valid evidence of notability are only serving to further convince me that it is not. — Anonymous 02:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{replyto|An anonymous username, not my real name}} I performed an EBSCO search [https://research.ebsco.com/c/gam2uv/search/results?limiters=&q=%22nail%20knot%22 here]. Also see Google Scholar's results [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=ja&as_sdt=0%2C39&q=%22nail+knot%22&btnG= here]. Z. Patterson (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::Certainly better than anything else provided in the discussion, I will grant that. I'm still not sure what our policy is on the use of fishing guides as reliable sources. — Anonymous 02:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::Comment - Outside of scholarly journal and book searches, I found sources such as [https://www.animatedknots.com/nail-knot Animated Knots], [https://www.netknots.com/fishing_knots/nail-knot netknots], [https://howtoflyfish.orvis.com/fly-fishing-knots/nail-knot-animation Orvis], and [https://www.flyfishersinternational.org/Learn/Learning-Center-Resources/Fly-Fishing-Skills/Knots-Rigging?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiAwtu9BhC8ARIsAI9JHanD24FzOswDqFvyKUipoDtP38SyAer_I6fpWoEsL9JqwWrg9i4rPakaAgSxEALw_wcB Fly Fishers International]. I think they are WP:RELIABLE. Z. Patterson (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I really don't think they are. In this day and age, I can't imagine it's very difficult for anyone to start a website about knots. — Anonymous 02:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• General nominator comment: While doing my best to assume good faith, I would like to add that there seems to be something fishy (pun not intended) going on with this discussion. Following a rather aggressive and adversarial comment from the creator of the article, this discussion has seen confusing and poorly justified keep arguments from three IPs with very little editing history (and later a somewhat better justified response from a user who does not seem to be a frequent participant at AfD). I rarely am one to assume the worst of our editors, but I think anyone presented with the same information would be unable to deny that something about this is more than a little weird. I really must doubt that this specific knot is just that popular. — Anonymous 02:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

:

• Keep [https://books.google.com/books?id=aS5eRKFjprgC&pg=PA124&dq=nail+knot+field+%26+stream&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiuvoahvdSLAxVXJzQIHcZ6K4gQ6AF6BAgHEAM#v=onepage&q=nail%20knot%20field%20%26%20stream&f=false Field & Stream, April 1974] has about 34 sentences and six diagrams about the nail knot. [https://books.google.com/books?id=vTUUoqi2fsIC&pg=PA73&dq=nail+knot+field+%26+stream&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiuvoahvdSLAxVXJzQIHcZ6K4gQ6AF6BAgEEAM#v=onepage&q=nail%20knot%20field%20%26%20stream&f=false Field & Stream, August 1974] has 16 sentences and 11 photographs of the nail knot. And then there are the books. The [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Field_Guide_to_Fishing_Knots/ZO1bsCIs2CsC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Field+guide+to+fishing+knots&printsec=frontcover Field Guide to Fishing Knots] has significant coverage of the nail knot. [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Fishing_Knots/Y763DAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Fishing+knots:+proven+to+work&printsec=frontcover Fishing Knots: Proven to Work for Light Tackle and Fly Fishing] has significant coverage of the nail knot. [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Fly_Fishing_Knots/V3AEAAAACAAJ?hl=en Fly-Fishing Knots] has significant coverage of the nail knot. A classic book from my own library that I just held in my hands, [https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Curtis_Creek_Manifesto/LHYeNAAACAAJ?hl=en The Curtis Creek Manifesto] by Sheridan Anderson describes the knot with five diagrams on page 29. I see at least a dozen other books online that discuss the knot. As for the comments above from the nominator {{u|An anonymous username, not my real name}} who doubts the motivations of the editors arguing keep, I have been editing for over 15 years, have made over 110,000 edits and have participated in over 3600 AfD debates. This specific knot is that popular among fly fishermen although it has a reputation of being difficult to tie. And I am only a beginner fly fisherman at best. Cullen328 (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• :I have no issue accepting this keep vote, as you accompanied it with clear and unambiguous evidence. This is the first comment in this discussion that has actually convinced me of notability. — Anonymous 12:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per Cullen328. The article definitely needs references - Cullen328 has shown clearly that there are sources which can be cited. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per the Google books results. @Anonymous, I encourage you to do a WP:BEFORE check in future discussions. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• :@HansVonStuttgart, yes, believe it or not, I don't go around nominating articles for deletion without any checking whatsoever. However, my search results don't always yield the same sources that others manage to find. — Anonymous 15:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• I have rewritten the article, eliminating the extraneous content and original research. The article now summarizes four reliable sources, and I have added references to those sources. Cullen328 (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.