Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawktree 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. It may be helpful to remind people that WP:N is not an official policy or guideline. Mango juice^talk 14:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hawktree Golf Club[edit]

Deprodded with no reason given. Nothing notable about this golf course and no major has been played here. Delete. BlueValour 21:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no assertion of notability. —dustmite 21:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per WP:LOCAL. Kappa 00:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the relevant parts state Initially, information on places of local importance should be added to an article on the community where that place is located... As more verifiable information on local places is added to the community article, the article or individual sections will start to get overly large. - nothing about keeping small, non-notable articles, here. BlueValour 01:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about deleting it either. BTW if you expect me to read what you are saying, why do you mark your edits as minor? Kappa 01:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The clear intention behind these words is that you do not create short articles for things of only local importance. If you wish to keep the article the preferable action is to find enough notable things to say that justify its existence. BlueValour 01:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create this article, and I don't care very much if it's kept or merged. Kappa 01:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's entirely honest. :-) BlueValour 01:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. My Alt Account 03:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the vast majority of North Dakota's golf courses have been on Wikipedia for some time and there's never been an issue. Why didn't someone bother to check with WP:WPND before moving to delete? --AlexWCovington (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment with all due respect Alex, what would be the point of that? <nom>"Hi, I'm going to AfD a ND related article because I don't see the notability" <WPND>"Please don't we think it is notable..."? The fact is that this is a golf course with no demonstrated notability or importance to put it over and above any other golf course in the world. Whether it is in ND, MI, NY is irrelevant. Unless their is a PGA or Senior tournament played here I don't see any reason for an article...--Isotope23 20:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Hawktree has been implementing cunning edge technology on the golf course which could be discussed in greater detail. The article could be expanded greatly as there is a vast amount of information available. There is no reason to delete the article. Weatherman90 02:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - fine; add sourced content I will vote keep too. BlueValour 23:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and mark as stub then expand.--Jolomo 03:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I agree with Alex that WP:WPND should have been contacted before putting this up for deletion. I really don't see what is wrong with having articles for individual golf courses. Most of these articles could be (and will be) expanded in the future. Articles like this are obviously stubs, but what's wrong with that? There are thousands of other stub articles on Wikipedia that no one would think of nominating for deletion. What's the difference between those articles and an article about a golf course? Both may be small now, but could be greatly expanded in the future...that's what being a stub article is all about. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 05:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the question is whether there is sufficient notability for this to be expanded? If there is why has it not been? There is nothing wrong with golf courses if they are notable courses. Since you have said 'Strong Keep' you must have clear notability evidence; please add it to the article or amend your view. BlueValour 23:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of importance. North Dakota project people need to calm down and get some perspective. Indrian 15:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article does need to be expanded though.--grejlen - talk 23:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this article has been around since March and no encyclopaedic content has been provided. The fact that this is a golf course does not justify its presence in Wikipedia. Either editors should substantially expand it or agree to its deletion. BlueValour 23:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge with Bismarck, North Dakota. Travisl 23:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A merge with Bismarck, North Dakota would do unless it's expanded.--grejlen - talk 22:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but expand. --RicKAbbo 00:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless there is a tournament held here, I don't see the notability.--Isotope23 20:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - MatthewUND and I have developed a plan to merge the unexpanded golf course articles originally created by Leopold Sampsonite (who has not edited anything in a while) with the relevant city pages. This particular article will likely not be merged as there is interest in expanding it soon. --AlexWCovington (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2006 (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.