Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noord-Nederlandse Golf & 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 no consensus leaning keep. Daniel (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noord-Nederlandse Golf & Country Club[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Unremarkable golf/country club. The article is unsourced and makes no serious claim of notability (and neither does the nlwiki version, even though it's longer). I can't find any significant coverage on it, just a few mentions in local media. Lennart97 (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hosted the European Boys' Team Championship in 2000. Booklet here celebrating their 50th year in 2000: https://static.golfgeschiedenis.nl/2061/2000_Noord-Nederlandse-GCC-1950-2000.pdf but just routine stuff, nothing to indicate notability. Nigej (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No valid case for deletion was made or exists. At the very least, this topic passes the WP:GNG with flying colors. Not after referencing but as long as WP:NEXIST exists. gidonb (talk) 09:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for finding those references, but there's a world of difference between "passing GNG with flying colors" and "having received some routine, run of the mill coverage from a local newspaper". You can expect a local paper like NvhN to have covered just about any local establishment or club a few times regardless of notability. That leaves us with the Telegraaf piece, which isn't particularly significant either. I do not believe GNG is currently met. Lennart97 (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - This often happens after a WP:BEFORE failure. Instead of withdrawing, the nominator will make arguments that conflict with policy and guidelines. It's a run-of-the-mill routine on which I'm passing. Everyone is invited to examine the references in the article and sources elsewhere and make up their own mind. I will concentrate on the article. gidonb (talk) 10:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's the strange thing though, instead of concentrating on the article, you're concentrating on me, with an unnecessarily hostile continuation of the discussion you claim you will not be a part of. Why not practice what you preach? Lennart97 (talk) 10:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, but the coverage in the presented sources lacks the necessary breadth and depth to pass GNG. I will hold off on !voting for a couple of days; perhaps substantial coverage can be found. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm sorry. This went under my opinion but I cannot relate to these responses. gidonb (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think moving the article and expanding it as a wider topic with swathes of completely unreferenced material is helpful while this discussion is ongoing. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wjemather: I found out that the Dutch-language parallel is a spinoff of a broader article. We only had the narrow spinoff, which was unfortunate. A vast amount of books and articles have been written about this subject or contain significant coverage of the subject. I estimate that there are some 100 sources with independent, significant coverage. Could be more. Already there are 817 references in the article, including in important national, regional, and specialized media. Of course, per WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST everyone is in charge of their own research. Based on my research this should be kept and should not have been nominated. gidonb (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have split the article as I believe we have sufficient content and references for both the parent and spinoff. Still tweaking both a bit. Beyond meeting the WP:GNG with flying colors, NNG&CC also meets WP:GEOFEAT #1 and #2, WP:ORGCRIT, and WP:CLUB #1. gidonb (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is completely different to what it was when the deletion nomination and the delete vote above was made so WP:HEY applies. On whether the club is WP:ROTM, Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. The sourcing is good enough that the subject passes WP:GNG and there's evidently enough to write an article about here, so why not keep it? Whether something is "run of the mill" is subjective anyway, what really counts is whether the article meets GNG or one of our SNGs. NemesisAT (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to easily pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 20:15, 30 November 2021 (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.