Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Charles Country Club

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. Core desat 06:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Charles Country Club[edit]

WP:N, unsourced, and has "sweet" in its Reference section - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 11:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha... "sweet" might not be a recognized reason for deletion, but it's amusing nonetheless. Epthorn (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I figured it gave a people something different to read besides the usual whining about how something may have notability when it clearly doesn't. this would be my...seventh AfD regarding WP:N I'll be participating... so... just join the bandwagon! :D - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 11:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless a better claim to notability is found than a chef. The assertion of being 'among the elite private clubs' is not really enough either, though if such a claim were evidenced by third-parties it might change my mind...Epthorn (talk) 12:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 13:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has hosted the Canadian Open. Catchpole (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hosting the Canadian Open is enough to keep the article. The claims of "elite" and the chef should be eliminated if not verified though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2007 (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.