Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crystal Downs 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. W.marsh 16:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Crystal Downs Country Club

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A private country club and golf course. Nominated for speedy deletion under A7 which I refused as the article claims notability in terms of the high reputation of its golf course. The key issue here is whether the privacy of the club renders it not notable. No vote. Sam Blacketer 10:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Almost all (or is it all) major golf courses are private. DGG 20:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Failed Primary Criterion of WP:CORP. There is no independent and reliable secondary source to pass the notability of this club. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 09:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The golf magazines ranking the course in the top 20 says something.  I'll admit, the article does not, as written, clearly demonstrate notability.  However a quick search brings up ample evidence for notability.  The article needs to be expanded and referenced.  Yes, you could argue that it technically does not meet the notability requirements as written, but they are available in a search.  Why delete the article only to have someone recreate it again?  Tagged for references.  Vegaswikian 23:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree, but the onus of putting references are not on the reader but to the editor. At the current state, I'm still seeing this article as non-notable enough. Having only one source that tells not primarily about the subject but a ranking is not enough for me. As a company article, I would expect secondary sources about customer reviews, independent expert reviews, interviews with the management, or other noteworthy events. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 07:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Then add an "unsourced tag". By nominating for deletion, you are saying you HAVE researched the topic and found no references at all, and want to have the topic deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chaser - T 17:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, as the subject matter seems to be notable enough, even though the article as currently written may not convey that fact. Charlie 09:59, 19 May 2007 (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.