Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dellwood 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Dellwood Country Club

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

This article appears that has been deleted four time times only to be recreated, twice as Dellwood country club. It does not appear that the creator is interested in establishing notability or referencing has attempted to establish notability or reference the article. No notability is noted other than designed by A.W. Tillinghast, and the course is already listed in the List_of_Tillinghast_courses. Part of the article could possibly be merged into Adolf Zukor, but I do not believe it is notable enough. Click23 (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I was the one who posted the information. The only reason it was edited so many times was because i'm new to posting in wikipedia.  Wasn't sure what i was doing, but i think i have the hang of it now.  The information that i posted is real, factual and informative.  Why would you want to delete it?  Isn't this what Wikipedia is for?  If someone said, hey, i want to know some information about the Dellwood Country Club, why shouldn't Wikipedia have information on it?  It's a club that has an interesting history and that's what i've posted.  It also happens to be designed by the famous golf courses designer A.W. Tillinhast.  Not exactly sure what the problem is with the post....  please explain further or please leave the post alone.
 * Wikipedia is not about everything and everyone having their on page. Organizations, such as Dellwood Country Club, have to follow the notability guidelines posted at WP:N and WP:Org.  You must cite reliable secondary sources, as outlined here.  Please do not see this as personal, as it is not.  Cazort raises some pretty good reasons to keep the article below, and that is why I posted it here, so everyone could have their say.  Click23 (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (changed to strong) Keep I did a quick google news search: and found a long period of coverage, most of it fairly small, but continually over a period of over 50 years, and much of it in the New York Times.  Most of it is about golf tournaments held there and other things related to its golf course.  I'd be hesitant to just delete this article: the golf course alone seems notable, but I'd prefer having an article on the whole club if possible, rather than just the golf course.  Yes, most of these sources are very old and are not freely available online--but that's not grounds to delete.  I am pretty confident that, if one got ones' hands on these print sources, it would be easy to write an article here.  In addition, there's also some discussion of zoning controversy involving the club.  This article seems like a classic one that it would take time and probably some offline work with library/archive access to improve--but it could be improved and thus should not be deleted.  Cazort (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 21:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 21:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Taking a trip into Google News shows several news stories about this golf course, proving notability. The article can easily be expanded and with proper sources could be a good article. Tavix | Talk  22:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just being mentioned in an article doesn't make it proof of notability. What is notable about the club? Many clubs without article host tournaments. So what? And article about a tourney, saying it it being held there, isn't notable. In depth articles about the club itself would be. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment According to WP:ORG, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability". From the several article that I looked at, from Cazorts link, they all talk about someone is a member there, someone got married there, some reception was held there, but nothing about the club itself.

PLEASE KEEP: The Dellwood Country Club has a rich and abundant history. Keep this page because it will be filled out over time with great factual information about the land, the club and the course and so many other things. Here is a link [LINK] to more information about the club. There are SO MANY sources of information. I"m just shocked why Wikipedia is so quick to delete this article. Am i missing something?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.125.58 (talk) Signed by Rankiri (talk)
 * Any article can be nominated for deletion, but that doesn't mean it will be deleted. If you really want it kept so bad, I'd recommend getting some sources for it as that would likely sway someone leaning for deletion. Tavix | Talk  17:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The source on tillinghast.net gives significant coverage, and as a non-profit, with primarily historical purposes, that does not seem to be associated with the country club, it seems to be independent. Perhaps one could argue it is not independent as it has an interest in promoting golf courses designed by that particular person.  But I think this argument would be a bit of a stretch.  Surely some print sources must be available in this case?  Does anyone who is more knowledgeable know of any?  That would solidify the case here.  But I still say keep, based on what we have found so far.  Cazort (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This may sound weird but who are you guys? I posted the original content about the Dellwood Country Club. Since then, various people have chimed in on whether it should be deleted or not. Are you administrators for Wikipedia or just Wiki Users like me? I'm so confused and curious. Ok, now that i got that out of the way, please tell me how you want me to post sources? I can post the score card and each holes par? I could put endless information, but i get the feeling that someone here doesn't want this page to exist? Who makes the final decision? Also, when you talk about Sources, are you referring to http articles? I'm sorry i'm not down with all the net lingo. I added my LINK to the reference section of the page, but you may have been talking about something else. I'm not sure.
 * Firstly, any Wikipedia user can comment on discussions about whether an article should be deleted, but a final decision is made by an administrator, and only when some form of consensus is achieved. Secondly, what we mean by sources is covered at WP:N and WP:RS - unless Dellwood Country Club is covered by independent reliable sources (could be websites, newspapers, books, journals, magazines, television, radio etc.), it is probably not notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article. If you can post details of some sources that cover Dellwood Country Club, then that would help. Mr_pand [ talk | contributions ] 08:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (and we don't agree, that's the fun of it!) I still think there are enough sources. Although finding more would be nice too.  Because this club has been in existence for a long time, I think it's important to consider that there are likely very many print sources that are not showing up in a google search.  The Tillinghast Association, that the one link is to, probably would know of sources if you don't know where to look.  You might even try calling the club itself!  Someone there would certainly know of print sources or books written about it.   Cazort (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

KEEP: I contacted the Dellwood Country Club. They told me there is a lot of literature about the Club, but almost all of it isn't available online. Because of this, they were appreciative of my efforts to get the Club listed on Wikipedia, as it's a great way for people to learn about the Club's historic past. As a reference, you should see "Time Magazine, January 14, 1929 Volume XIII Number 2, page 26".
 * Delete - How could a club founded in 1948 have an article written about it in 1929? Bearian (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you had looked at the article you wouldn't be asking that question. How can you render an opinion if you haven't looked at the article? The closing administrator should ignore your !vote. Drawn Some (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I read the article over, but the reference still does not make sense. The only reference has no title or author, and is not searchable online.  The reference dates from 1929, so it must be about the Estate that became the Club in 1948.  I do not see how that proves notability.  Alexander Hamilton's father-in-law once owned the land I live on, and the future first president of Willamette University once lived in my house.  That does not make my house notable.  This article needs to have references added, not hand-waving.   If you really want to keep it, then please be bold and then fix it. Bearian (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I want to point out that you're advocating something unreasonable--saying that people should try to fix it before you'd be convinced to recommend to keep it. I, for one, don't want to put time and effort into editing an article and adding sources only to have it deleted.  I have argued that sources are highly likely to exist offline, and even online there is one detailed source and many sources for small, isolated facts.  I think this is enough to keep--and keep BEFORE cleaning up.  Cazort (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Question: Regarding this observation, "In addition, there's also some discussion of zoning controversy involving the club." Is there a wiki list on "reasons to watch the local government channel on cable?" Issues of local interest generally don't make notability. If there was an argument that set larger precedent that would be fine. Regarding the other comments, which I have to take as sincere, this is an encyclopedia attempting to archive human knowledge that may transcend immediate situational issues. Some publications try to describe facts starkly. Has your club ever been involved in a scandal? Have children gotten sick from your lawn chemicals and made national news? Sex and big-name celebrities? Freak accident involving a golf ball that made news? There is nothing wrong with "dead tree sources" but we need some way to check it. I've been a defender of the obscure, perhaps if you can find public domain records and put them online that would help but it isn't a primary issue. In legal terms, I think there is something about argue with particularity- you need to at least assert somethig specific enough to argue- an anon post about a vague claim from the owner about some gnostic writings doesn't give us anything to debate. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep/Merge I grew up near there. Jokes aside, when you filter out incidental events held there, there is some significant coverage from the local newspaper and other news sources. I think there is verifiable and important information but not opposed to a merge to Zukor and/or New City, New York where it's located. StarM 02:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

KEEP: It seems like this has been around for a while and is worth documenting. Rather than spending time organizing a campaign to delete articles, why not try to find some references to help justify keeping it? As long as the content is interesting enough that a moderate number of people might be interested in reading it and encyclopedic in content it should stay. --Rich0 (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Seems entirely non-notable. Article makes no claims of notability, and unable to readily find anything that would substantiate such a claim if one were made. wjemather bigissue 10:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

 KEEP  Duplicate vote. (Rankiri (talk)): The NY Times article was just one of many. I'm contacting the club to get more information on other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.125.58 (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please sign your comments and don't make multiple recommendations. Thank you. — Rankiri (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. No notability visible here.  Somebody change my mind? -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 00:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - I looked through the google news hits and they're all trivial mentions. Has this course won any notable awards? Corpx (talk) 05:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read my comments above about non-online sources. Given that the coverage goes back to the founding of the club (and before, as the discussion here has pointed out--in that the estate that became the club is well-documented), I think it is a lot safer to assume that print sources exist than to assume that they do not.  And above, the anonymous user gave this source:  which is highly detailed and seems fairly reliable as it is by a non-profit.  But the point is, with a historical topic like this, it's absurd to argue to keep or delete solely on the basis of sources that are (readily) available online.  We need to look at what sources are online and make a best guess as to what is also out there offline.  And personally, I think the online coverage is pretty overwhelming here to--yes it might be mostly trivial mentions, but there is such a huge volume of coverage over a long period of time that it is more than enough to piece together a relatively complete picture of the club just from that alone.  Cazort (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you completely on keeping the article based on an assumption that other sources may exist. That completely negates the point of WP:NOTABILITY if we're going to determine notability on unverifiable sources.  I dont think the site you linked to qualifies as a reliable source either Corpx (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. But article's sources should be expanded.  69.253.207.9 (talk) 04:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relevant search results (WP:V):
 * http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/08/realestate/if-you-re-thinking-of-living-in-new-city-open-space-30-miles-from-the-big-city.html?pagewanted=2
 * http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/27/obituaries/bernard-g-nemeroff-lawyer-82.html — Rankiri (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Both incidental coverage and insufficient for it to meet bullet point 1 of WP:GNG. wjemather bigissue 14:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hence the WP:V notice. This is the best I could find without buying a subscription to The New York Times. — Rankiri (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the second article has trivial coverage, but the first article does contribute a small historical fact about the founding of the club, and I think that material belongs in the article. But quibbling over details like this misses the big points covered above, in support of keeping: (a) the detailed tillinghast.net source (b) the extremely high likelihood of print sources being available (c) the sustained coverage over a very long time-period, with.  Any one of these points is enough for me to lean towards keeping the article, together they seal it for me.  On the basis of further reflection I am changing my recommendation to a strong keep.  Cazort (talk) 01:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Dellwood Country Club has more facilities than what's listed. They e.g., they have a BBQ pit, volleyball court, kids playground, steam rooms, driving range, etc.  But if this article is going to be deleted, then why bother posting.  When will an official decision be made on the fate of this article?  We have to accept it or delete it.  It's been in limbo for weeks.  My vote is still to keep it as it provides factual information on a historic club.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.7.137 (talk) 02:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One, the BBQ pit and such are great and wonderful and all, but they don't make the country club notable. Two, if you look up, you'll see that it was relisted to get consensus.  At this point, I'm in agreement - a decision should be made today. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 19:05, 6 July 2009 (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.