Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daytona Beach Golf Course


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Daytona Beach Golf Course

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

There is nothing notable about this golf course to warrant inclusion. bigissue (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, but the History section has to be rewritten-- it is a copyright violation (see http://www.daytonahotels.com/golf/courses.php). [Now done. MW]] Golf is a part of our culture, and an old course designed by a famous course designer is as inherently notable as an old house designed by a notable architect. And I say this as someone who has never played golf, and who is faintly repelled by the golf culture. -- Mwanner | Talk 17:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Any public cultural/sporting facility in existence for almost a century inherently meets both WP:V and WP:NOTE. --Gene_poole (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Longevity does not equal notability. Nor does having a noted person as the designer. The fact is, this golf course has held no tournaments of any merit or had any other impact on history. P.S. The references used seem to be just the club website and another sites that is a direct copy of that content. bigissue (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * With the longevity this course has, it should be easily possible for Golf enthusiasts to find more sources if some time is given. - Mgm|(talk) 19:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with Mwanner. I consider buildings, parks and courses designed by notable designers notable. Antonio Gaudi would be a great example to compare with. His buildings are basically notable for existing. No historical events, no tournaments, or anything like that contributed to their notability. Also, based on the size courses usually have, I would also consider it a major landmark. - Mgm|(talk) 19:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable course by notable designer meets the Wikipedia notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as factual, sourced, and sufficiently notable. --Lockley (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * keep what an excellent example of a great article for WIkipdeia!--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2008 (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.