Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gillette Ridge Golf Club (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Gillette Ridge Golf Club
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable golf course. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see how this subject is notable, unless someone can find references to the contrary. The page could also be redirected or merged into Arnold Palmer. I know next to nothing about golf, so I'd like to hear if others more knowledgeable on the subject think redirecting or merging is worthwhile as opposed to deletion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to Keep with the improvements that have been made to the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. I've added an article from the Journal Inquirer which discusses this golf course, and appears to be an independent, reliable source. The Courant article already cited is WP:SIGCOV. Additional articles at The Courant: announcement of plans to build the course and naming of the course. I believe there is room for expansion and that the course passes WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have added the two additional Courant articles to this article and added more content. NemesisAT (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  13:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per WP:HEY. Article seems to meet GNG now. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG by a distance. This is a WP:MILL golf facility. There is nothing significant in the sources that have been added, they are just routine local-interest reporting and announcements relating to commercial/housing developments; no in depth coverage about the golf course. In fact there are no sources on the golf club/course beyond the usual wide-ranging listings and review sites which contribute nothing to establishing notability. A possible WP:ATD would be to merge into Cigna as that is what most of the sources in the article are actually about. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 09:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think a merge into Cigna would be beneficial because that article is about a healthcare and insurance company, this one is about a golf course. The content here would not be relevant at Cigna, and you make it harder to access and lose the location data by merging it into Cigna. I disagree with the above commenter that this fails GNG, as it does not exclude local coverage. WP:MILL is just an essay, the important point in my view is that this passes GNG and thus should be kept. NemesisAT (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of a merge along the lines of a single sentence (maybe two), since that is all this warrants due to the almost total lack of substantial content. Trivial mentions of the golf course in articles about the overall development of the site are not significant coverage of the golf course; this fails GNG. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:59, 17 August 2021 (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.