Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estancia golf 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 National ranked course, definately notable. Other issues can be cleaned up. -Djsasso (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Estancia golf club[edit]

I confess to not being a golfer! This article is about a what seems to me to be a non-notable golf club and/or community. I have been unable to find any references from independent sources to suggest notability. A Google search for Estancia golf club returned 70 hits, all of directory entries or real estate sites. There is no suggestion that the golf course (or the community) are any different from any other. Emeraude (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly a non-notable site.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is spammy, but the course was ranked by Golf Digest as the best new private club for 1996 [1], it's currently ranked as the 81st best golf course in America [2], and it has other awards too.[3] So, It looks like a notable golf course to me. It does, however, appear to be usually referred to as "Estancia club", so a move may be in order.--Kubigula (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've cleaned it up a bit to remove the advertising and reference the claims to notability.--Kubigula (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's a gated housing estate! Rambot's work is fine, but, honestly, an ad for a subdivision? I don't care who designed the golf course -- that would be a claim for the golf course's fame -- it's a housing estate, and they don't need our help in moving inventory. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the houseing estate is not significant. However, it shares a name with the golf course , which does seem to be notable.--Kubigula (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, I have clarified the notable golf course as a separate entity from the non-notable subdivision.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 02:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Golf Digest reference is great. Why is being continually re-listed? Catchpole (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I can't remove my delete vote, because the article is still about moving housing units. If it's such a wonderful golf club, then just talk about the golf course, rename to Estancia (golf course), and explain why Golf Digest wants to praise it. They must have some reason, other than Tom Fazio's involvement. Is it supposed to be most challenging? Does it have the neatest greens? Are the pars perfectly designed? What? Utgard Loki (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment- ESPN calls it the "Estancia Golf Club", while the other two sources above call it the "Estancia Club", so the title of the article is probably OK - even if it's purely about the course. At most, it could be move to "Estancia Club". As to your other points, the fact that it's a nationally ranked course that has been substantively discussed in several reliable sources seems quite sufficient to establish notability, which is the only real issue for this AfD. The rest are content issues to be addressed later. I'll flesh it out a bit if it's kept, but I hate to spend my energy otherwise.--Kubigula (talk) 23:41, 21 February 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.