Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African golfers

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 keep. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of African golfers[edit]

WP:LISTCRUFT - An unreferenced list. This category already covers all of the golfers by nationality, and does a better job than this list. Tavix (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- being redundant to a category is not reason for deletion, and just saying WP:LISTCRUFT doesn't convince me either. This list can be sourced and has reasonable limits. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Although this early-Wikipedia article could be more useful than a category (sorry, the little flags don't help), and it could be sourced, it's pretty much the indiscriminate list of blue-links. The ideal improvement would be a brief note about each person-- which tournament he/she finished highest at and years of activity, for instance. Mandsford (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. This list is short enough to make an edit like the one Mandsford suggested a reasonable undertaking. We can contact User:Michfan2123 (most active editor on this list) and ask him to make the neccesary additions. If the current version is really so unbearable it could even be userfied to his userspace. The core point I'm trying to get across is that this should get a chance to get edited now concerns have been raised. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Michfan2123 told me they don't have the time to do the edit suggested, so it would have to be sent to an appriopriate wikiproject instead. - Mgm|^(talk) 05:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lists are a form of data organisation that are on the wiki. It links to many golfers articles. Snowman (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep can be worked on and made into an informative, good list with a respectable lede. An article or list being crappy right now is not a reason for it to be deleted. The question is whether or not it is notable, useful, and can be held within reasonable limits. This meets that standard. SMSpivey (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2009 (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.