Talk:List of America's 100 greatest golf courses

Speedy delete nomination

The actual link to the Golf Digest list for this information was to be out on or after 4/6/2009. Reference for list will be replaced when link is available. "Under construction tag was used. Toounstable (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tag is typically reserved for established articles that need an overhauling, not new ones. There is almost a unanimous opinion that using the "under construction" tag on brand new articles is in bad taste, so I would suggest not trying to use that as a reason to not be deleted. Further, how does this not violate copyrights? You lifted it directly from the source (whether that is the site or the magazine). How does this article pass notability standards? How is it not a direct violation of WP:NOT? The site/magazine would be better off as a source for individual golf courses, but not its own, stand-alone article. --13² 21:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the primary article (Golf Digest) already has an established section for the top ten, this page is a perfect candidate for a redirect given that the title is actually a plausible search. I have removed the speedy tag, made the redirect for the article, and will make the redirect for this talk page in a little while to give the author a chance to discuss this further if they want. --13² 22:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that such lists that are an expected part of WP (see WP:lists). List of 100 largest law firms globally and List of largest U.S. law firms by number of lawyers are similar examples. Those 2 "list" articles are also taken directly from the sources. Do they violate WP copyright rules? It seems that if you still think the article should be deleted or redirected, it should be nominated as an AfD or redirection suggested on the article to obtain further discussion from other WP editors. Toounstable (talk) 23:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but please do not bring up other articles in this discussion. This discussion is about THIS article, not THOSE articles. That's an argument to avoid in deletion discussion. Further, those articles have quantitative data (as in, the reason they are the "largest" can be verified with a number). This article, however, is based on qualitative data (as in, someone just decided it was the "greatest"). There is a vast difference between those articles and this one. They are also not exact copies of the source and, indeed, one is gathered from multiple sources.

You still haven't made any decent argument for why this passes WP:N and why it wouldn't fall under WP:IINFO. You have not brought up decent reasons to keep this article as an article, instead of simply redirecting it to the primary article. I strongly suggest you reinstate the redirect or risk having the article completely deleted. --13² 01:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, an administrator will come around eventually and decide the merit of this article. If they think it should stay, they'll remove the CSD tag and then it can go to AFD. If they think it should go, they'll delete it. That is the process, not AFD first. It's a waste of other editors' time on voting if this can just be deleted speedily because it doesn't pass notability requirements. --13² 01:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)I've noticed a few of your edits to both your own talk page and Dank55's talk page. First Wikipedia is not a democracy. Decisions are based on discussion, not votes. Dank55 specifically referenced the talk page when creating the redirect. As of that point and this message, you still haven't indicated why this article passes notability and why it does not violate WP:IINFO. That is the cornerstone in creating an acceptable article and having it remain. You have not bothered to do so, so why should the article remain, as is? Please address these topics. Thank you. PS: "Longest running" is less peacocky, but would still need a source. --13² 04:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The difference between "List of 100 greatest golf courses" and "List of 100 largest law firms" is that largest is an objective measurement, while greatest is subjective. Given that this listing is based entirely on opinion, the merit of this subject for inclusion rests on the notability of the article itself. Has the article been reported on by another, independent reliable source? If it hasn't, I think AfD is the best venue for this discussion. If it has, then a summary of the article would merit inclusion. Golf Digest is a slim article, so it makes the most sense to keep the content there and redirect this article to it. Wronkiew (talk) 04:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is what I think as well. --13² 04:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

declined speedy

I am not sure its a copyvio. It certainly isn't of the page specified, because they did not make the list. As usual, the publication of a list of this sort involved a lot more than the bare names on the list. i can suggest nother ways of handling this, if consensus turns out to be otherwise: Make it a category. As another possibility, make a table of golf courses and years for all of those on the list. But if one knows an article is going to be debated, it is not appropriate to take it here first in the hope of short-circuiting it. DGG (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only person debating it is the creator so "if one knows an article is going to be debated, it is not appropriate to take it here first in the hope of short-circuiting it" is a bit of an overstatement. Of course the author is going to debate it. As of yet, the author is the only person debating it. I really don't qualify that as a debate, but rather a defense. That said, I've already suggested a redirect (and, indeed, made the redirect myself, which was overturned by, you guessed it, the author). I don't think the category idea is the best idea considering the ranking itself doesn't pass notability at this time. --13² 03:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the question is notability, then it must go to AfD, because its not the type of article that fits within the no claim to notability rule for speedy -- see WP:CSD A7. If the claim is copyvio, then that can be screened at afd. But I don't think it was unquestionable copyvio, so I declined it. In my experience, articles of this sort are rather sharply debated. They have, actually, been deleted more often than they have been kept. I haven't the least idea what way the decision would go on this one--AfD is unpredictable. But the very best thing to do to is try to find some way of handling the article that won;t cause problems. Otherwise, the place to decide the copyvio question isn't here, but at a wider forum: either AfD, or Copyright Problems. DGG (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. I have contacted the author on their talk page and suggested they further consider a redirect or, at the very least, discussing the merits of inclusion for this article. I will wait for their reply before considering AFD as I would much prefer a redirect over a full-scale deletion. Thanks again! --13² 05:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Establishing notability

This list is the "gold standard" in golf course ratings which can be assessed by doing a google search. Every year it is cited by numerous other articles about golf courses or about specific golf courses on the list. If given time, I can establish this IMO. However, I am totally baffled as to why one particular editor seems determined to delete or redirect this article immediately without allowing for further discussion. This editor nominated it for speedy deletion, which was declined, and has since been determined to delete the article by redirection instead of suggesting redirection and allowing time for discussion. I have been working on improving the article using the "under construction" tag instead of spending time arguing here -- something which has been used to suggest that I am attempting to "own" this article. I am simply trying to develop a proper article and am frustrated in my good faith attempt to do so. Toounstable (talk) 04:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection is not deletion. Please don't confuse the two. As soon as I realized there was another article summarizing the "top 10" courses, I immediately redirected to that (which has a citation to the full list). You have not made any major changes since the article was created (which is what the "under construction" tag is generally reserved for) and have only made minor grammar, typo, and word changes, but have done nothing to indicate why this merits its own article and why it doesn't violate WP:IINFO. You have finally started, with this message, anything resembling discussion, which is why I warned you with WP:OWN in the first place (you were reverting without discussing). Thank you for finally coming here to discuss instead of repeatedly reverting. However, I still suggest you reconsider redirecting the article, working the article up in a sandbox, and then uploading it. --13² 04:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the top 10 is not the same as the top 100. I'm tired and this is just a hobby, which isn't much fun tonight. Sorry that I'm not on top of the way things are done around here. It seems to have raised your ire. Toounstable (talk) 04:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Top 10 is a summarized version of a Top 100. I think the Top 10, followed by a citation, plus a link, to the top 100 is sufficient. It hasn't "raised [my] ire." I'm a little frustrated by the fact that you still haven't addressed my questions and concerns, but I'm not angry or anything like that. I patrol new pages and I think there are better ways to use this page, but I don't have any negative feelings toward you or this page. I wish you could see that, simply answer my questions, and address my concerns. You seem desperate not to though. :| I'm not sure where to go from here based on that. --13² 04:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide sources establishing the article's or series of articles' notability, that would address my concerns. Until then, perhaps this article could be moved to your user space where you can work on it without attracting controversy. Wronkiew (talk) 05:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that "top 10" sort of solution has worked before. If it satisfies everyone who cares, it could work again. If not, as I said above, findsome other compromise, or take it to the community at AfD or elsewhere. Personally, as I said on my talk page, if it's the list from the major golf magazine, my view is that it is certainly notable and my prediction is that it will be held so at AfD. The real question is copyvio. Our decisions about that have not really been consistent. DGG (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The magazine has a credible claim to copyright over the order of the courses in their list. It is opinion and not a simple order based on an objective measurement. I agree that a summary with a link to the full list is the safest approach. Wronkiew (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and can't say it better than Wronkiew did. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]