Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple 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. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Golf 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)

Not notable golf course. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no decent coverage in independent sources, failing WP:GNG. It did have this source which was removed for being an unreliable source. Even if it is reliable, it's insufficient on its own. Spiderone 12:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, Aymatth2 for future reference, how did you find those books? I know a couple are on GBooks but interested in knowing how you stumbled upon the others. Spiderone 16:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I probably just searched for "Temple" "Golf" "Berkshire" in Books, and the results suggested variants like "Temple Links" "Willie". The problem was to filter out the many index-type sources, although cumulatively I would say they show notability. Golf courses are big and tend to get plenty of coverage about one aspect or another, so are usually notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Directory listings so not establish notability, no matter how many of them there are. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesnt appear to be of particularly note or of encyclopedic merit for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I pumped it up. It has in-depth coverage by several reliable sources, as one would expect of a golf course of this age and quality. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable, two bad we have so many incompetent editors like Spiderone who don't bother to ever research articles. † Encyclopædius 15:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There is just about enough here, but we now have an article that is more about agronomy and associated activities than the golf club/course. This needs to be resolved, unless the club has been a pioneer in this regard. In addition, the sources are fairly weak for establishing notability, with several trivial/passing mentions and most descriptives of the club/course being directly attributable to the club or people associated with the club. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does not really matter what the subject is noted for. The independent sources cited are mostly interested in scenic beauty and ecological value. For a source more concerned with the game of golf, see Lorne Smith (2009), "Temple", Fine Golf. This excellent description is independent, but possibly does not technically qualify as reliable. (The "Colonel Ricardo" mentioned as a founder is F. C. Ricardo.) Aymatth2 (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that the club is noted for this. Peake was chairman of the greens committee at Temple GC, so not independent. His heavy involvement with the STRI, puts the independence of the Taylor/STRI source in question also. This leaves Cotton (another directory-type source), and The Paper Maker. All together, it's pretty weak as far as meeting the requirements of GNG. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
STRI (Sports Turf Research Institute) studies turf, gives advice on turf and publishes turf-related books, including Taylor's and Peake's. They are reliable enough. Taylor is independent, but Peake is not for GNG purposes. Henry Cotton was a great authority on golf as a player and course architect. I added a bit of content. The course won the 1999 BIGGA Golf Environment Competition. It got three paragraphs from Keith Duff in Attracting birds to grassland and downland courses (2011). It is noted for environmentally sound practices, which presumably is the industry direction. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The case for passing GNG remains weak. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)}[reply]
We have in-depth (multi-paragraph) coverage from reliable independent sources including The Paper Maker (1920), Henry Cotton (1969), Bob Taylor (1995), BIGGA (1999) and Keith Duff (2011). Aymatth2 (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:SIGCOV, WP:MILL, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:GNG. The only sources are specialty interest books. Every single golf course has, at some time, had one or more notable golfers play there, but that does not mean the course is notable. Honestly, if this were notable, a major tournament or charity event would have been held here. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC) See also User:Bearian/Standards#Golf_courses_and_country_clubs. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no guideline that says a golf course is only notable if it has hosted a major event, or that golf-related sources do not count. Temple has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and is therefore notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. The topic is clearly notable and Aymatth2 has done an excellent job of demonstrating this. Kudos. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:57, 12 January 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.