Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020-21 PGA Tour priority ranking


 * 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.

The result was no consensus. It doesn't seem like we're any closer to figuring out whether the information is Verifable and in compliance with our policy on Original Research than we were after the first relist. I don't see that a third relist is likely to bring us closer to consensus. Perhaps a new discussion (after waiting at least a few months) will find consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

2020-21 PGA Tour priority ranking

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Violation of WP:NOT. Seems an attempt to track "current" exemptions and stats rather than present anything encyclopedic. Content merely duplicates that available on the PGA Tour website and in media guides, sourced exclusively from primary sources, with some original research. Details regarding changes to criteria, etc. are already covered in the season articles and these are the generally the only details that are covered in independent reliable sources.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

wjematherplease leave a message... 08:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. wjematherplease leave a message... 08:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. wjematherplease leave a message... 08:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep This article should not be deleted. It tracks the current priority rankings of the PGA Tour which continually change after every tournament. It also provide the reader with a list of current PGA members and explains the way the priority rankings operate, and thus, it not merely duplicative. Further, at the end of the season it allows the reader to determine where the golfer will end up in next year's priority rankings, and whether they are likely to retain their PGA Tour membership. The article takes information from a variety of sites and puts them in a user friendly format, and should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McLeran4 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Surely it's not our role to maintain such a highly detailed list. Could perhaps usefully be kept in someone user space, for reference purposes; but that's a separate issue. Nigej (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I created the page for this last season. Been off wiki for a bit for medical reasons, will update on my reasoning soon Jopal22 (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: My motivation for this was page was to have something similar to 2019 PGA Championship for the PGA Tour. When I first starting looking at golf articles these meant I understood a lot better the qualification for the majors (although I like that these are now on a separate page). Arguably PGA Tour status is more important to a player than any single major. Essentially I think having these pages gives much more context to how the PGA Tour works. It was really useful to me and I hoped this page would be to others. Specifically things that it enables that I couldn't find anywhere else on wikipedia are:
 * Allows a complete list of players on the PGA Tour.
 * Gives context to the importance of each category and how the PGA Tour functions
 * Explicitly sets out who lost their PGA Tour cards and how (not needed this year due to COVID changes). This isn't really addressed anywhere else and without it is like having a European football league page that only cares about champions and not relegation.
 * Explicitly sets out who joined the tour.
 * Comment: In terms of being encyclopaedic and based on primary sources. I would argues items such are getting a PGA Tour exemption when winning a tournament or finishing in the top 125 FedEx, gaining temporary membership, losing your PGA Tour card etc are widely discussed in the golf media. Wikipedia is not a newspaper though so we should be representing this in a more encyclopedic and structured way as has been done here. Wikipedia is not against using primary sources when the source is objective and requires no ambiguity. This is similar to the justification for field listing and pages such as 2019 Korn Ferry Tour Finals graduates.
 * Comment: Thirdly I would say the fact that other wikipedia users are keeping records of this, and there has been positive feedback and engagement from others apart from myself (I didn't create this page this year) -- there was one response on a golf talk page saying they recognised my name as I created this page in 2019-20 and it was the best page on wikipedia as it helped them understand the tour. Annoyingly I can't find this now! As for the point made by User:Phinumu, it wasn't actually my intention originally to do all the reordering but other people started doing it. I think now the PGA Tour media guide is digital it is more transparent - but happy to not have reordering and keep everything alphabetical. So from the above I don't think this should be deleted or falls foul of wiki rules. Even if there is a marginal argument it does I would argue WP:IAR as this has been very useful to some people to understand the tour, and there is no argument that it is not factual true, well set out and well maintained. Also I would mention although the PGA Tour wikipedia page does set out the categories, I notice this has not been updated for changes in the last few years, does not really give the same context for understanding as these pages do, and is subject to WP:RECENT Jopal22 (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also User:Wjemather, could you point to the part of WP:NOT you think this fall foul of as I couldn't identify it. Thanks. Jopal22 (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm somewhat ambivalent here. In theory I'm in favor of having such a page. But in practice, it's almost impossible to keep adequately sourced. I maintain a similar list at User:Phinumu/PGA Tour exemptions, but there are often assumptions I have to make – for instance, while Rob Bolton keeps an updated list of the graduate reshuffle order, I have to figure out the order for the conditional guys and the past champions myself based on their FedEx Cup ranks. pʰeːnuːmuː  →‎  pʰiːnyːmyː  → ‎ ɸinimi  → ‎ fiɲimi  20:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment To expand on my nomination rationale and answer the query above... I suggest that these articles contravene NOT on at least three counts: WP:NOTMIRROR, WP:NOTDIR, WP:RAWDATA, as they are simple listings of primary source data. There is also, as mentioned, WP:OR issues with some content (e.g. updates) being unsourced and assumptive, based on personal knowledge. Third party sources do not cover the priority ranking to anything close to such a granular level – therefore, nor should we. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [communicate] ||  16:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep There are two things I would like to say at the outset:

- I am the one who told Jopal22 that this is the best page that has been published since I've been a user on Wikipedia. It is incredibly detailed and is so obviously valuable! Exemption status is so important and yet it is so hard to find anywhere on the internet. As far I know the PGA Tour doesn't even have it accessible anywhere. This is a huge addition to WikiProject Golf and I am somewhat in shock that this year's page is up for deletion.

- The page may not live up to some people's pedantic prescriptions for an encyclopedia entry but it, again, seems so obviously valuable. Even if it does not perfectly adhere to some rules what about WP:IAR? This immediately crossed my mind when I came across this deletion page. Jopal22 mentioned this too.

Could I hear more in layman's terms (I'm still sort of new to Wikipedia) as to why exactly this does not fulfill the criteria for an encyclopedia? Is it mainly because it is a fluid, evolving thing and will be hard to cite the changes?

I would like to hear back. I will respond more comprehensively in the future.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly


 * You've described and confirmed exactly why it fails criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia as unverifiable original research. wjematherplease leave a message... 20:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment This article is extremely valuable to understanding the PGA Tour, it is well maintained by multiple users, and factually accurate. There is no reason it should be deleted. Thank you Jopal22 for creating such a valuable resource. McLeran4 (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Will we be hearing from an administrator soon? This has been up for deletion for 10 days now.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: None of the keep votes are persuasive that this is not OR but I'l like more input on what reliable sourcing the list is based on

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

It is not Original Research. It is organized in an original, understandable, and user friendly format. However, all the content is pulled from the sources are included on the Wiki page under references. McLeran4 (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not true. Sources only cover the bare lists at certain points in time; much of the additional detail is unsourced OR, as confirmed by others above. Strip out the OR and all we have is a MIRROR of the sources. wjematherplease leave a message... 20:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The only thing that has been highlighted as marginal OR is reordering of the Past Champions category 3 times in the season. That is marginal to the page and can be discarded. You have not highlighted anything else as OR, because it is not. Feel free to correct me on anything else you feel is OR. Jopal22 (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Then please add sources (preferable some independent ones – clue: they don't exist) to verify everything that is currently unsourced. wjematherplease leave a message... 21:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet again you have failed to actually highlight what exact items you see as original research. It's tough for me to reply in that scenario. As an attempt at guessing I link to Rory McIlory's page on the PGA Tour website as an example. https://www.pgatour.com/players/player.28237.rory-mcilroy.html. EXEMPT STATUS: PGA TOUR: Winner, THE PLAYERS Championship (thru 2025-26). You to ask me to spend time adding more sources when you don't highlight anything specific you need sourcing, and you know I wouldn't want to spend time on a page that is being targeted for deletion. Jopal22 (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Hate to keep this going another week, but it would be great to see some analysis from other uninvolved editors.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [yak] ||  01:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Article is way too much WP:OR....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep again : Exemption status is constantly mentioned in the media. It seems every week on TV they are talking about a golfer with fringe status who is trying pick up points and advance his exemption status. For example, during the broadcast of the Barracuda Championship on the Golf Channel they were consistently talking about the permutations that would determine whether Matthias Schwab could make the PGA Tour. (I believe he needed a solo third or joint runner-up finish. Ultimately, he finished T-3 and didn't get it.) Also, the exemption status of Will Zalatoris has come up in just about every PGA Tour broadcast this fall. The announcers may not specifically say the exact words "2020-21 PGA Tour priority ranking" but they are obviously referencing this. Oogglywoogly (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
 * You don't get to !vote more than once (see WP:AFDFORMAT: "do not repeat a bolded recommendation on a new bulleted line"). wjematherplease leave a message... 11:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * My apologies for "voting" again. I breezed through ‑Scottywong 's comment, not noticing that he was just looking for previously "uninvolved" editors.


 * Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly


 * Keep Topic is clearly notable and content disputes are not a reason to delete. Smartyllama (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Care to expand on your WP:Clearly notable claim? Also, it is incorrect to frame this as a simple content dispute; without the problematic content (per WP:NOT rawdata/mirror/guide/directory and WP:OR in particular), there is no article. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting that you are requesting Smartyllama to explain his or her position when your comments, particularly with respect to OR, have not provided anything but conclusory assertions to support your nomination. I am not sure why you are so intent on the deletion of this page when multiple users have attested to its value. If you convey something of substance with respect to your complaints then users would be able to improve this page and remedy your alleged shortcomings. Until you provide something specific, all you have produced are general complaints with no concreate reason to justify your deletion nomination. McLeran4 (talk) 03:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Being WP:USEFUL does not equate to being encyclopedic. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It can't be both a mirror and OR. Those are nearly exact opposites of each other. As others have said, it is the people who have made these claims for deletion who need to explain them bette. Smartyllama (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This has been explained very clearly. With the OR removed, a mirror is all that remains (and the reverse is also true); a mirror that also falls foul of rawdata. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to blindly reproduce lists such as these. The priority ranking itself is covered (albeit badly) in the PGA Tour article, and any seasonal changes are covered in the season articles. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.