Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naldehra 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 delete. Wizardman 23:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Naldehra Golf Club

Naldehra Golf Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Notability: no significant coverage in RS can be found; article reads as a promotional brochure and has been tagged "Notability" since 2008. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - Per nominator. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 15:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• Keep the Lonely Planet reference confirms the history of set up by Lord Curzon in 1900, notable historic golf course. Atlantic306 (talk) 03:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment -- would Lonely Planet be considered WP:ROUTINE coverage for a tourist attraction? K.e.coffman (talk) 06:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

  it depends what it says. If it shows the historic nature of the attraction, then maybe. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's what it says (link):

• "Established in 1905 by British viceroy Lord Curzon (who loved the place so much he named his daughter after it), the course is set among tall cedars. It’s a challenging course with the added quirk that many holes share the same fairway, criss-crossing it at different angles. Hire a caddy (₹150 per nine holes) or you won’t know where you’re going. You can have a drink and snack in the clubhouse bar whether you're playing or not."

Does not seem sufficient coverage to sustain an entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

....The information is entirely PR, and in that case and with that said, none of it would help for the notability here; what may hit the ball is "Hire a caddy (₹150 per nine holes) or you won’t know where you’re going. You can have a drink and snack in the clubhouse bar whether you're playing or not". This is frankly G11 and I have tagged as such. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment the above quote was mainly from the reference not the article so it does not qualify for G11. The history confirmed by Lonely Planet is enough IMO for the article to be kept. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment -- the above is actually currently included in the article. Quote:

• "Equipment is available on hire as well. Hire a caddy (Rs40/70 for 9/18 holes) or you won’t know where you’re going."

References

So this appears to be a copyvio, as it's word for word from the Lonely Planet. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete In a search of Google and Google Books I could find no independent coverage, except for the one blurb from Lonely Planet. Multiple sources are required for notability. One would think that a golf course this old and with this romantic a history would have significant coverage, but I could not find any. --MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

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.