Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Mickle (golfer) (2nd nomination)

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. Assertions by new and single purpose accounts that sources exist does not make it so; currently none are cited in the article or here. Sandstein 05:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Mickle (golfer)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Exactly the same as the first AfD. Non-notable golf teaching professional. Still no mentions in reliable third party sources as required to verify claims of notability. _wjemather ^bigissue 17:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. —_wjemather ^bigissue 17:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - per award was presented to Mickle by the PGA Chief Executive Sandy Jones mentioning. I give this article the benefit of a doubt for now. Awaits more consensus.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The awards is less of an award and more of a qualification level for coaching as I pointed out in the last AFD. See [1]. What is missing is coverage about this guy in reliable sources. Considering how huge the golf industry is, and how much media coverage there is with dedicated golf TV channels, and dedicated golf magazines in addition to regular general media coverage, the lack of any sources in the article, or from a google search it telling. -- Whpq (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here is the guy's bio from his web site. As a coach, which seem to be the primary claim to notability, his major accomplishment is a bringing a couple of junior golfers up to scratch which is a rather weak assertion to notability for an article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that anybody who makes it to the top out of some 20,000 Golf-Professionals on Mainland Europa, most certainly warrents a place in Wiki.Imagine the case of a Attorney in the US achieving the same excellence in standards, a leading position from all other Attorney's and leading the World of Law....would he or she not warrent a place? Of course they would. I have looked at the Charles Mickle's website and it seems to me that my coach is useless when compared. As for the citation of Junior Players - this appears to be wayward of the point in view of the fact that Mickle also coaches many professional players, something very few professionals achieve in a lifetime. I think and believe that the original edit is very worthy of a place in our World of Wikipedia.92.223.51.53 (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC) — 92.223.51.53 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - I would absolutely support the inclusion of a top golf coach in Wikipedia. But it requires documentation in reliable sources independent of the subject which are lacking in this case. -- Whpq (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...Remark...Documentation and reliable sources of a qualified nature are present in the article concerned. I have just read some of the links for this person and they appear to be quite correct and above board. I mean, why should the information portrayed be untrue? When there is enough evidence to suggest if not prove beyond all reasonable doubt... the complete opposite?

Have you researched Google Germany as a matter of interest for this person?

In my opinion just as someone else mentioned above that the article should be given the benefit of all doubt and that the existing format stay as published. The person named is quite obviously not bogus and is certainly worthy of an edit. There are many other 'people edits' on Wiki who are by no means in the same league as this person..some things I find hard to comprehend..92.223.51.53 (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC) — 92.223.51.53 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Reply - Are you reading the same article as I am? There are no reliable sources in the article. The links in the article lead to web sites that do nothing to verify any of the infroma;tion presented. -- Whpq (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remark--Also Whpq mentioned in his disclosure about the "Award being nothing other than an award for coaching".. but if you click the link to the PGA and read about the award, it has nothing really to do with coaching...it has all to do with further education, examinations and achievements in the world of Golf. Reading the facts state that an Award of such magnitude is only presented to outstanding individuals. I rest my case, but please do more homework on the subject matter for next time, before another outstanding person or edit is quashed because this guy certainly has merit and more for his contribution to the World of Golf!! 92.223.51.53 (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)— 92.223.51.53 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - If you are going to bold, and put in quotes, words that are attributed to me, please have the courtesy to actually quote what I actually wrote which is that it is "less of an award and more of a qualification level for coaching". And I have no idea what link I should click as you have not offered it here. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree with what has been said by user 92.223.51.53. The article deserves on merit to stand as published. The Edit could be made perhaps better, maybe one of you professionals could ((help)) out here?...but the evidence given is easily proven and enough to warrent it's inclusion to Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birdie18 for life (talk • contribs) 16:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC) — Birdie18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - There is no evidence! Reliable sources are needed, not just assertions. -- Whpq (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Of course there is evidence. Evidence is the Award that he received in Munich. How much more evidence of high status within the golfing World, does one require??? You write about needing a link for the PGA website, which is abundently clear in the edit of Charles Mickle and you wrote...."And I have no idea what link I should click as you have not offered it here".

Surely had the homework via the PGA Website etc been done first time around then we would not be having this conversation via transcript.It seems to me that the original edit was deleted on the grounds of no clear research on your part and the second applied for deletion.... is yet again along the same lines...it appears to me and others that it is a personal vandetta of yours to delete if possible, this content yet again, which, if going on any of the comments above, is adequately justified to stay in print.

The edit should remain...92.223.51.226 (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)— 92.223.51.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - The onus is on those how are advocating to keep this article to provide reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Telling me to look for myself will not result in this article being kept. -- Whpq (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its an obvious Keep for now Whpq.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is it in any way obvious? There is absolutely no sourcing whatsoever. -- Whpq (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. The "award" is as noted above is "...less of an award and more of a qualification level for coaching." For the same reason we do not include a PhD without any Wikipedia based notability, this "award" does not qualify as a notable achievement – as least as defined by Wikipedia. As also pointed out the burden of proof rests with the author of the article. It appears to me the only thing obvious is the article lacks independent, verifiable, reliable sources that support Wikipedia based notability in either WP:BIO or WP:ATHLETE and the keep comments are not based on Wikipedia guidelines. A note to 92.223.51.226, please do not make uncivil comments about personal vendetta's. I see no evidence of anyone having an agenda and your comments only serve to cloud the real issue at hand – is the article subject notable based on Wikipedia criteria. ttonyb (talk) 22:32, 19 March 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.