Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canlubang Golf & Country Club


 * 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. Arguments from Superastig and DGG are about the same, other editors agree with both of these. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Canlubang Golf & Country Club

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article has no significant coverage from independent sources. It does not satisfy WP:GNG. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 11:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  11:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  11:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Coverage about the golf course isn't that much, but I managed to find some reliable sources about it:, and . It is also described in the books as well:  and . Even its management talked about its inactivity amid the pandemic in this article. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG.  ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Apparent advertising for non-notable organization . Of those refs mentioned just above,  Ref 1 begins  "Canlubang Golf & Country Club is one of my favorite clubs"  and is not reliable for any purpose wherever published. Ref 2., in the same business journal,  "...Club has a daxzling layout ", Ref 3 "My favorite golf course " in a trade magazine.Refs 4 and 5 are directory entries in travel guides. None of this is remotely objective coverage. There seems nothing else.  DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per DGG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG with sources presented by Astig. They're non-trivial and reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources are not independent in this case as shown by DGGJackattack1597 (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per DGG.4meter4 (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2021 (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.