Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago District Golf Association


 * 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Chicago District Golf Association

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Tagged for notability since 2010. No indication of any notability. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Golf, United States of America, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,  and Wisconsin. UtherSRG (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Many mentions via Newspapers.com (more than 5 million), , and others Timur9008 (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Are any of them WP:SIRS? - UtherSRG (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually nevermind. After looking way further those sources are about it. Timur9008 (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * None of those 3 newspaper articles provide WP:SIGCOV. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. - Indefensible (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Unfortunately, not notable enough, as proven by the search for reliable sources conducted above. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Subject doesn't have the requisite WP:SIGCOV for a standalone article, either here or elsewhere. WP:LOTSOFSOURCES is not a suitable deletion argument. User:Let'srun 21:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Strike vote, I assume this is going to get deleted. The organization is over 100 years old though, in-depth coverage from back then would be difficult to find. No one is contesting its history which should be enough to merit coverage, this is really more just a failure of referencing. - Indefensible (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2023 (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.