Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Merkow


 * 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

David Merkow

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I proposed this article for deletion because I didn't think it met Notability (sports). The proposed deletion template was removed on the grounds that the subject meets the general notability requirement. I'm not convinced of this, however. There is some coverage in third-party sources, but this only really amounts to coverage of golf tournaments that aren't at a high enough level for the golf notability guideline. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Agreed. Only reason this article was even created is because the golfer is Jewish and the user who created the article spends most of his time obsessively filling List of Jewish sportspeople. There's 0 news coverage or academic coverage  of this player. Almost all other google hits simply mention his stats or that he was named Big Ten player here . Note that basically none of those other listees have articles.  Bull dog123  14:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Not a notable golfer. Comes nowhere near notability guidelines as either a professional or amateur golfer. Tewapack (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. As the over 60 refs in the article indicate, there is sufficiently significant coverage here to meet the GNG guidelines.  There are also many other dozens of articles behind pay article sites.  By satisfying GNG, it satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia (It is sufficient if the subject meets the General Notability Guideline; in that event, it need not meet the golf guideline).  Bulldog is dramatically incorrect in his representation as to the news coverage, as reflected both in the article refs and here.  The refs relate to many of his accomplishments, and not just to his being named Big Ten Conference Player of the Year -- such as his winning 2 gold medals at the 11th Pan American Maccabi Games, winning the World Junior Masters tournament boys 14–15, winning the American Junior Golf Association's SLI Junior Classic boys, winning the Wisconsin State Golf Association Best-Ball title, winning the individual title at the Second Annual Big Ten/Pac-10 Challenge, and finishing his college career 6th in Northwestern's all-time stroke average.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Epeefleche (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work on the article, Epeefleche. To take an article that might be deleted from zero to 62 references in a day shows a lot of commitment to Wikipedia. I'm now rather on the fence about the nomination. On the one hand, I don't think that the majority of the sources used represent significant coverage since they are just minor mentions of Merkow's name in articles about golf tournaments he's played in, and I'm not sure the achievements listed above help because none of the tournaments mentioned are significant in the golf world, but on the other hand the sheer number of sources might have to be taken into account. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Don't get too impressed by it, Cordless Larry, it's a practice known as bombardment or ref-bombing. Nowhere is there a policy which states that if you can find X number of references which include the words "David Merkow", then David Merkow is automatically notable.  Epeefleeche has bombarded this article with an assortment of sources, most of which mention David Merkow in some way, but do these sources establish the notability of David Merkow?  My opinion is no, they do not.  I've briefly looked through all of the sources (but certainly didn't read every word of each of them).  The vast majority of the sources prove nothing more than that David Merkow exists, that he plays golf, and that he got a particular score in a particular match.  Other show that he is now an assistant golf coach at a university.  That's about it.  He is an amateur golfer, he plays in amateur/regional/collegiate tournaments.  This is not a professional golfer.  The fact that he won the Pan American Maccabi Games (an amateur competition which is open only to jews from certain countries) does not establish notability in any way.  The bottom line is this:  there are sources which mention this individual, no doubt.  However, do these sources describe any notable events that this individual was involved in?  How can we define whether the events described in the sources are notable?  Well, perhaps we can take a look at the secondary notability guidelines, which exist for a reason.  Are there any sources which show that this individual has accomplished anything described at WP:ATHLETE?  Not that I can see.  There is only one criterion for amateur golfers, and that is if they have won at least one recognized amateur golf tournament at the national or international level (ex: US Amateur, British Amateur).  That would be a tournament that is open to any amateur, not just teenagers from Milwaukee, or just American college students, or just jews from north/south america and israel, etc.  Epeefleeche has found a wealth of routine coverage of events in this individual's life which are not notable.  Snotty Wong   communicate 17:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All of the refs relate to Merkow. Not, as Snotty suggests, only "most" of the refs.  Also, Snotty is wrong as to Merkow's status.  Merkow is indeed a professional golfer.  And Snotty is mistaken in suggesting that the refs are "routine" coverage.  That is defined by wikipedia as "Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, [and] crime logs", and these refs in toto go far beyond that, with some articles even having Merkow as the main subject of the article (though GNG makes clear that that is not at all a requirement).--Epeefleche (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I missed the references which detail his extensive professional golf career. Can you provide a few?  Snotty Wong   communicate 21:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's silly. You wrote: "He is an amateur golfer, he plays in amateur... tournaments.  This is not a professional golfer."  That's wrong.  Now, without admitting that your first statement was wrong, you imply (incorrectly) that your first statement was that he did not have an "extensive" professional career.  That misrepresents what you said.  As with your description of the refs, I think you are perhaps being somewhat less than accurate.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that my use of the word "extensive" threw you for such a loop. All I'm looking for are sources which establish that this is a notable pro golfer.  Can you provide such sources instead of responding with an extended critique of my word choices?  Thanks.  Snotty Wong   soliloquize 00:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That he is notable is reflected in the multiple non-trivial refs, which are reflected in the article. Focus primarily on those used as multiple refs, are with his name in the title of the article.  That he is now most recently a professional, after years of coverage of his amateur career ... you're kidding me now; you've read all the refs, so I'm sure you've seen that he is now playing on a pro tour.  And, btw, I'm not sure if you noticed that as an amateur he won the He won the World Junior Masters tournament and American Junior Golf Association's SLI Junior age group competitions--which of course, despite your additional misleading description, are not just open to "just teenagers from Milwaukee".--Epeefleche (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I dove back into the article since you are apparently unwilling to post the sources here. The only mention I could find of Merkow's pro career is that he is playing in the NGA Hooters Tour, a mini-tour (which is the lowest level of professional golf that exists).  He is currently ranked 306th out of 366 players on the tour.  The only prerequisite for joining the tour is filling out this application and having $2000 to blow.  Yet somehow you are trying to characterize this individual as a notable pro golfer.  Look, he's a young guy still trying to make his start in pro golf.  He seems like he's trying to work his way up the ladder, but it is way too soon to write an article on him as if he is a notable golfer.  He's just not.  Yes, you managed to find quite a few articles which mention his name.  I still maintain that most of these are trivial mentions in articles that are not primarily about Merkow.  All of the sources that I've seen which are primarily about Merkow or provide significant coverage of him are from local sources, school newspapers, or obscure special-interest publications like the Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle.  You've been known in the past to aggressively push your POV when it comes to articles relating to jews or judaism, and this is no exception.  This guy is an assistant coach at a university, just barely turned pro, and is ranked in the bottom 20% of the only mini-tour he has every played in.  Furthermore, the coverage of his professional golf career is apparently limited to the Marquette University school newspaper and the Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle.  This is not the profile of a notable golfer.  Snotty Wong   converse 00:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Certainly seems notable to me, but then I am not a golfer.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Which sources convince you that the subject is notable? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For a start, if your interest is finding the most significant such sources, there are dozens of refs in the article (even without looking at the dozens more in the gnews search). Some of the more significant refs are those that reflect his name in the title of the article, and those that are cited multiple times.  Plus, you might look to those articles which discuss his winning various tournaments/awards.  The refs are primarily non-trivial and primarily secondary sources.  If you need ref numbers, I will be happy to provide some of the more significant ones among the 60-plus, but you can probably find them easily by looking at what I described.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Winning a regional amateur golf tournament is not a notable event, regardless of whether or not it got covered by a local publication. Amateur golf tournaments are a dime a dozen, there are thousands of them per year in the US alone.  Snotty Wong   soliloquize 00:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Snotty -- if the coverage is multiple non-trivial RSs, which it is, it doesn't matter if it is for watching grass grow. It is the core of GNG, which allows the project to escape from editor A saying "I don't think a world junior tournament win, or a State amateur win, or a Pan American Maccabiah gold medal is notable".  If they in aggregate receive multiple refs of the sort we have here covering them, the person is notable per wp rules.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. WP:GNG states that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."  It does not say that a topic is automatically notable if it has received coverage.  It is up to us to analyze that coverage, determine if it is truly significant or if it is trivial, determine if it is not just routine coverage or coverage of local interests, and determine if the events being covered are actually notable events.  In the end, notability is determined by consensus.  I believe I have painted a clear picture  of why this is not a notable pro golfer.  If he is known for something other than golfing as well, then please let us know.  Otherwise, if golf is all you've got, then this is clearly not a notable pro golfer by anyone's definition, and no amount of ref-bombing is going to change that.  Snotty Wong   gossip 00:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It certainly seems to be mincing words.Trackinfo (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: does not meet any of the criteria in WP:NSPORTS. Coverage appears to be "routine news reporting on things like ... sports" (WP:NOT). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is backed by several dozen reliable and verifiable sources that are about the subject, meeting the general standard for notability. WP:NSPORTS is a standard for inclusion of articles, not a justification for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, no, WP:NSPORTS outlines what is the general standard of notability for a golfer, so it can very well be used as a justification for deletion. Secondly, records of a person's existence in a certain field does not immediately mean that person meets general notability criteria. Bull dog123  22:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "WP:NSPORTS is a standard for inclusion of articles, not a justification for deletion." How does that make any sense?  If a subject doesn't pass the "standard for inclusion", then it is not included (i.e. it is deleted).  Any "standard of inclusion" is, by its very definition and nature, a justification for deletion.  Snotty Wong   speak 22:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *poke* 01:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources in the article indicate that he meets WP:GNG, which trump any sub-guideline.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per the WP:GNG. Xdonna (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 20:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC).  <-Single-purpose account  Passionless   -Talk  20:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Weak Delete, per Notability (sports) + WP:ROUTINE. I'm going to end up being a bit verbose for a "weak" call, because I think the subject might end up notable someday, but the claims in the article itself don't seem to show notability despite the number of citations and other very hard efforts to show notability, and that's why I suspect this subject isn't going to get above a certain level (below notability) for now.  This article seems to still be an article about a guy who just isn't quite there yet as far as Notability (sports).  Dousing it in inspirational happy talk about hope, and being theoretically just as good as big winners, and teammates thinking someone is special, and being really really proud of one's own genetic pool, etc., doesn't make a person notable.  Specific claims to fame in this article:
 * American Junior Golf Association and all those others in that paragraph are children's awards, and less well-known than, say, the kids in the List of Scripps National Spelling Bee champions, none of whom have articles.
 * Winning the "Big Ten Conference Player of the Year" in golf is of questionable notability; the Big Ten is only 11 or 12 colleges, and someone's golf player has to win every year. The article does not specify how many golfers there are across the Big Ten conference.
 * His international "career" is a so-called "gold medal" dependent on 99.8% of his competition in the world (and 97.8% of the U.S. population) being disqualified first &mdash; on religious/racial/ethnic grounds, no less. (I'll bet I could win a golf award if 99.8% of people who might be better than me weren't allowed to compete.  I haven't picked up a golf club in years.)  Again, the article doesn't say how many people were left to play golf in Argentina that week after 99.8% of the world's population was barred.
 * He's never gotten past sectional qualifying stage in the U.S. Open, which, as the name implies, is an open golf tournament, not requiring professional credentials except to skip the qualifying stages. Merkow neither skipped to, nor qualified for, the main tournament.
 * NGA Hooters Tour is a "developmental men's golf tour" not organized by the PGA (as the higher competitions are); it appears to be the forth tier golf series in the USA.
 * On the topic of using WP:GNG vs. WP:NSPORTS: Yes, GNG is the defining standard, and a subject "may still be notable" (note "may") according to WP:NSPORTS &mdash; however, the more specific notability guidelines exist by consensus and they exist for a good reason. Conceivably there could an overriding reason why a person would meet WP:GNG and not WP:BIO, or WP:BIO and not a subtopic's guidelines, but when a person doesn't meet the more specific guidelines, that's a pretty strong hint, from Wikipedians who are familiar with the topic in question, that what looks like WP:GNG coverage is probably routine and ends up covering non-notable subjects as well.  Note WP:ROUTINE: "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine."  I think we need to take a hard look at which of the (now 66) citations in the article are covering specific sports leagues/series or events (particularly those that have a contractual relationship with the media outlet) and have to give someone 15 minutes of fame to fill their reporting quota.  I could be wrong &mdash; that's why I'm calling this a "weak" call despite all these points.  This is not to make David Merkow sound bad; he sounds promising &mdash; eventually.  If he's as good as the article makes him sound, he'll meet Notability (sports) someday.  Just not yet. --Closeapple (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interesting post. A couple of points.  First -- I have a different understanding of GNG vs. specific guidelines, based on my time dealing with the issue over the years.  The specific guidelines, as I understand it, were meant to makes sure that someone who met them (think, a person who did not have many articles written about them--for any number of reasons, such as decade at issue or country at issue, but won a significant international event, would get in where they did not have sufficient coverage to get in under GNG).  But perhaps I am wrong, or consensus has changed.  As this appears to be a key issue here, I'll leave word of this discussion on the relevant talk page, pointing to here.  Secondly, "claims to fame" misses the point, IMHO.  "Fame" is by no means the test, though editors often  mistakenly think it is.  Non-famous but notable is what we seek to include as well.  Thirdly, what is meant by "routine" is clarified in the relevant section -- the flavor is "Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine."  Those are wholly different than the coverage here.  It is in fact the number of citations, and depth of them, in reliable sources that determines notability, and IMHO that is amply demonstrated here.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On the GNG versus the sports-specific guideline point, presumably the principal case in which the former might override the latter is if an otherwise unnotable sportsperson (according to the sports guideline) had done something non-sports related that makes them notable according to the GNG. When their achievements are limited to sports, however, I think the case for the GNG to override the more specific guidelines must be weaker. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't mean to imply that "fame" was actually the standard &mdash; that was just to use a common phrase. The things I listed were what I saw as claims of Merkow's top levels of achievement, because some levels of achievement tend to make a person presumed notable or someone may feel that the person must have had in-depth coverage because of a level of achievement that "sounds" large, without analyzing the sources &mdash; making assumptions like that would allow Wikipuffery to succeed. As you know, each source needs to be considered on its merits to determine whether it's reliable. In the case of notability discussions, I would give weight to how much each source is a WP:RS not only for its actual facts, but also whether it's WP:RS for making an editorial distinction between noteworthy and trivial coverage on that subject; sources can be in the grey area between "hard news" (valid for notability) and "gossip", particularly when they've established a financial link with the subject area they're covering. Notability is from sources "independent of the subject" in Wikipedia guidelines, and many sources that are normally WP:RS for facts end up being a lot less "independent of the subject" on certain subjects, particularly when it comes to regulated sports and entertainment events in which event organizers determine which media outlets give the biggest boost to the event's bottom line and will get favored access. --Closeapple (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

— donmanguno (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep It seems a bad precedent, a deliberate override of the intent of WP:GNG to delete an article with 60 sources. Of the sources I read, they were neither related to the subject, niche specific or trivial.  You can't just take this volume of material and put your . . . but, but . . . opinion as a higher level of judgement.  Wikipedia is a worldwide source of information.  This is legitimate, sourced information.  It is not a vanity article, fraudulent or unsourced and clearly falls within the bounds of WP:GNG.  Denying that sets this self-administration system on a slippery slope of tossing a lot of valuable and well founded content. Trackinfo (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The requirement for determining notability is that the subject meet the standards of either WP:GNG or one of the subject specific guidelines, not that they pass both. His ability to meet the subject guideline may be dubious, however I think he passes GNG. This is a very large article in which everything is reliably sourced. Use common sense in applying the guideline rather than hairsplitting.Horrorshowj (talk) 06:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG. WP:NSPORTS is just a guideline to when a subject is likely to meet WP:GNG. One of the sentences in the lead of that guideline makes specific mention that not meeting its criteria does not mean it needs to be deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep As most have said above. Yes, if all the sources were local and/or routine (as often for high-school or amateur athletes), that may be reason to assert non-notability, but most of the sources are regional or national - no question that the GNG metric is met. --M ASEM  (t) 14:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per refs Someone65 (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete It seems that a lot of people here are being wooed by the 66 references. Please, before you determine that the existence of lots of references makes something valid, do some investigation into the provenance of said references.  I am a nobody, and yet I could probably find 66 articles as insignificant as these which refer to me.  The arguments made above as to why these references are not sufficient to demonstrate notoriety are excellent arguments, and I haven't seen any refutation of the points that were made.  Instead, everyone who votes to keep this article keeps parroting the "66 refs" line. The longer the internet is around, the more thoroughly documented mundane people and events will become.  By the standard of "a lot of references on the web = notoriety," we will soon all be notorious.donmanguno (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.44.161.98 (talk) — donmanguno (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. I have looked at all of the sources cited in the article and can find no coverage that goes beyond routine sports reporting and local interest stories, the kind of which any amateur tournament golfer would receive. Many people in this discussion have claimed that there are such sources, but nobody has actually identified which they are. There's an elephant in this room that I'm sure everyone can see, and I'm also sure that I will be vilified for pointing it out, but would there have been any support at all for keeping this article if the subject weren't Jewish? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Certain editors have been known in the past to routinely and aggressively push their POV with respect to jewish subjects, so addressing the elephant in the room shouldn't (but probably will) provoke any vilification. I think it is reasonable to surmise that this article was created because of Merkow's religion (in part, at least), especially since he seems to be quite proud and public about it.  His quote from one of the sources: "When I make it on [the PGA] Tour, I’d like it to be known that I’m Jewish. Whether it’s wearing my Star of David [around his neck], or having a Chai on my [golf] bag, I want to show that there are good Jewish athletes."  Of course, he's not on the PGA tour yet, so I guess we'll have to wait and see if there are actually good Jewish atheletes.  Perhaps when he actually has a real pro career and he makes the tour it will be appropriate to have an article on him.  Snotty Wong   express 22:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you focus on those articles that mention Merkow's name in the title, and those that are used for more than one ref, to see some of the more significant refs.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have looked at those and not found anything particularly significant. Why can't you just point to a few of the specific sources that you mean rather than send people off on a wild goose chase? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The one and only reason this article was created is because the golfer is Jewish. Elephant in the room, my a**. Just take a look at the creator's contribution history. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for cultural promotion. Bull dog123  09:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would ask that Bull redact his untruth -- he does not know what the only reason this article was created is, what he stated is untrue, and it does the project and his arguments little good for him to state untruths. To assist Phil, I would suggest you focus on those articles that mention Merkow's name in the title (such as what are currently refs 1, 3-5, 9, 13, 17, 20, 34-5, 48, 55, and 58), and those that are used for more than one ref (such as what are currently refs 1-3, 5, 8-9, 13-14, 17, 27, 39, 46, 51, 62, and 65-66), to see some of the more significant refs.  The majority of the commentators at this AfD have managed to find the requisite significance in the article's refs to reflect notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Google news search for his name and the word "golf" gives ample results. He gets plenty of coverage. David Merkow Garners All-Big Ten Honors.  The first link in the article is for an article about him.  You have to pay to read the entire thing though.  At the end it says it has a conversation with him and someone else who was interviewing him.  So there was ample coverage there.   D r e a m Focus  17:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete Note that WP:NSPORT specifically states that game or tournament summaries are considered routine with respect to establishing a sports person's notability.. He clearly does not fall under WP:NSPORT's golf guidelines. And I think that most if not all the articles mentioned are routine enough that they don't satisfy WP:GNG. It is possible that he does satisfy NCAA notability by being big ten athlete of the year. Is this an award that counts towards establishing notability (see the college athlete section of NSPORT)MATThematical (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2011 (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.