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.
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.
Spiderone12:25, 1 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
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
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. wjematherplease 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. wjematherplease 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
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
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.
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.
Spiderone12:25, 1 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
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
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. wjematherplease 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. wjematherplease 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
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
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.