Talk:Sutton Green, Surrey

Advert
Frietjes and I have decided that this article needs to be improved, due to the fact that the Golf Course part seems to be written like an advert - Willrocks10  Speak to me  16:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There appears to be some confusion over why this is advertising. The key reason is that it looks like somebody from the golf club wrote it. The use of unverifiable weasel words such as "top class", and a list of golf club facilities also support the suggestion that this is massively promotional for the golf club; half of the article is taken up by this free advertising for the village golf course and it should be removed. I propose that it be trimmed, as I attempted to do with this edit.-- Mrmatiko (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

Time for my say! As you said above, I have removed the weasel words/phrases from the article. I do not see how it is free advertising or how it is massively promotional for the golf course. Simply stating the facilities it has does not benefit the golf course anymore than the church benefits from being mentioned.

To show it is not Advertising I have a few so called Wiki 'rules':

Advertising. All information about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.

Also, please visit the following page:

WP:ORG

I will try to add some references over the next few days.

Pbl1998 (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the key issue with the golf club section is that even in an article about a city with a world famous golf club, it would be undue weight to have an entire section devoted to the golf course. By massively skewing the article towards being about a golf club/course, as opposed to a village near Woking, it distorts the entire purpose of the article in a way that isn't neutral. There should only be a small mention of the golf course, it might be slightly larger than the change I made (and I'm willing to compromise a bit) but no more than a sentence or two. While giving free advertising to a golf club is problematic, it is nothing compared to the damage done to an otherwise decent article by focusing so much of it on something so unimportant as the village golf course. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Having a large section about the golf course, which is over half the article, is undue weight and coatracking. I have cut it down the section to have the same weight as the other subsections.  I would suggest creating a stand-alone article about the golf course if it is notable. Frietjes (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see what your saying MrMatiko. I have had a look at the page think that it is good. I am willing to keep the page how it currently is. Frietjes, I don't think it is notable enough to have its own page. Everone agree it is good now?

Thanks, Pbl1998 (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)