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.
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
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
@
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
@
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
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
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.