User:WhaleyTim/Sandbox : NGC

My main reason for posting this has been the number of courses that have been added to the Links article. Now, I guess you could probably spend the best part of a winter discussing what is or is not a links course without coming to a conclusion. Anyway, there is a huge number of redlinked golf courses in the article, which got me thinking about what makes a golf course notable. I moseyed over here to see if anyone had anything to say about it, posted the question above, and being an impatient so-and-so decided to post some of my thoughts having not got a reply within an hour. If this has already been done to death forgive me.

Wikipedia normal rules of notability of course apply: ”Significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject”.

I suggest that the following should be discounted as sources indicating notability:

I suggest that inherent notability within the context of golf would apply to courses that have:
 * Club websites or club sponsored publications (obviously)
 * Entries in gazetteers of courses.
 * Coverage in trade publications.
 * Coverage in tourist guides.
 * Publication of results of club competitions, reports of social events, legal or administrative reporting in local or regional publications etc.
 * Coverage of the course for non-golfing reasons.


 * Been listed as one of the top courses in the world by a reputable golf publication.
 * Been listed as one of the top courses in a continent by a reputable golf publication.
 * Hosted a men’s or women’s major championship.
 * Hosted a professional tournament the results of which have been used to calculate men’s or women’s world rankings.
 * Hosted the Ryder or World Cup competitions.
 * Hosted the Curtis or Walker Cup Cup competitions.
 * Hosted a national men’s or women’s open, professional or amateur championship.
 * Hosted an elite men’s or women’s amateur event.

One could argue that apart from the first two categories the courses inherit their notability from the events that they have hosted, rather than having notability themselves. However, by hosting one of the listed events it is almost certain that some amount of coverage in the specialist golf, national or international press about the course itself will be generated. From the perspective of a golfer, rather than a Wikilawyer I would be interested in finding more about such courses on Wikipedia, but then that argument probably falls foul of some "just because you think it is interesting does not matter" clause somewhere.

The normal rules of Wikipedia notability will apply to courses that may be notable for historical reasons but do not fall into the above categories. If they are genuinely historically notable they will have significant coverage in reputable golf publications.

I am aware that my suggestions reflect my perspective as an Anglo-Scottish golfer who spends some part of his time in the USA and is not beyond criticism. I would welcome further discussion of the subject, including what can be considered a “reputable golf publication”.

Off tomorrow to the Cavvie ( http://www.cavendishgolfclub.com/ ) with my new Pings.