Talk:GolfStyles

Notability easily reached
In case anyone genuinely suspects there is insufficient notability for an article, let me explain. My biases should not be at issue; the content of the article should be evaluated on its own. Nevertheless, let me reassure the reader that I am in no way affiliated with the magazine. I am not even a subscriber (though I have seen it and it is impressive). I am also not a member of the Unification Church.

Notability is easily achieved here in either of two separate ways. [1] The magazine bills itself as "America's best regional golf magazine", and nationally renowned course architect Arthur Hills describes it as "world class". I personally know of perhaps a hundred Wikipedia articles on far less important topics. So the magazine is important in its own right. [2] The magazine is part of the media empire of Sun Myung Moon. Critics assert that Moon uses his media publications to draw in prominent and influential people, and use the associations to advertise his bought-and-paid for "legitimacy" and to otherwise further his ends. He himself has made similar boasts. Whether or not these criticisms are true, there is controversy which is noteworthy.

Taken together, the needed notability is far surpassed, even apart from the question of whether the two qualifications have a multiplicative effect, generating more notability than just the sum of the two qualifying factors. -Exucmember (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * These are good starting points. What we need now are multiple independent, published sources that allow readers to verify these claims. Do you have anything other than 1stop4golf.com? Its okay, but I would expect there to be coverage in traditional printed media that you can quote. Has the Washington Post has covered the magazine? Other local or national press? These would be the sorts of sources needed to allow readers to verify the claims of notability and in particular to meet Wikipedia's guidelines on notability of companies. Thanks, Gwernol 11:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[1] I have added more references from multiple independent, published sources which directly speak to its notability. I am not a golf aficionado, but this much was fairly easy, as there are over 40,000 results in Google for "GolfStyles". I put a stub tag on the article when I created it so that golf people who are more knowledgeable than I am about such things could add to the article and fill out this aspect of it, but now that's no longer necessary; they can add to other aspects. [2] Don't expect the Washington Post to rush right out and give free publicity to a magazine published by its number one competitor, the Washington Times. [3] The magazine has increased notability (over what the magazine itself has in its own right) because of its role as part of the media empire of Sun Myung Moon. Other editors may add as they see fit to this controversial aspect of the magazine's notability. -Exucmember (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You've added a further reference from the same source (1stop4golf.com) and several which are reprints of press releases from GolfStyles magazine. 1stop4golf.com is a weak reference as it doesn't appear to have a strong fact checking policy that I can find, nor a reputation as in independent publisher. Reprints of press releases don't count as independent, published sources, per our notability guidelines which says "...excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc". So this really hasn't moved us forward much. My example of the Washington Post was meant as just an example; surely there has been independent press coverage of the magazine somewhere? I'm afraid being published by the Unification Church does not automatically confer notability, in the Wikipedia sense. Thanks, Gwernol 21:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please have a look at the history again. I didn't add any other references from 1stop4golf.com (which is a rather weak reference) since the time of your request for multiple independent, published sources. I added several references that were published in Golf Business Wire (which I found at "www.golfbusinesswire.com"). There were no references previously from this publication. These included quoting Russ Whitnah, the vice president and general manager of WNTP radio station in Philadelphia (apparently a golf aficionado) as saying that GolfStyles magazine is "a recognized leader in the golf publications industry." Golf Business Wire also cited "GolfStyles" magazine's circulation as more than 315,000 per issue (very high, notable just from this one fact). In another article Golf Business Wire described the weekly radio show that GolfStyles magazine produces as a "hit." It was one of the Golf Business Wire articles that was reprinted (perhaps this doesn't need to be in the article).

The main contribution of One Stop Golf Review was to quote a nationally renowned course architect (Arthur Hills) as describing "GolfStyles" magazine as "world class" and saying it "has become the bar by which others are measured."

All the indications of notability now in the article, taken together, are certainly sufficient. Golf-related topics may be rather narrow, but not nearly as much so as a very large number of special-interest articles on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not constrained by printing and shipping costs, so its vast breadth on myriad topics is one of its strengths.

If you would like to get some indication of why the Unification Church controversy may confer additional notability, you might want to have a look at The Washington Times article and Talk page. This issue is more complex, but you may be able to glean something relevant from the article and discussions there. -Exucmember (talk) 06:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Exucmember. I was looking for the article on "country club Republicans" to link to this one in the see also section. It seems like WP doesn't have one. Redddogg (talk) 08:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)