Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golfers with 20 Champions Tour wins

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 23:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Golfers with 20 Champions Tour wins
Just a table of Golfers and how many wins they have. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Nor is it an almanac. Also 20 is kind of an arbitrary cut off. If this gets deleted, then we should probably also delete most of the articles in Category:Golf_records, as they are very similar. DaveTheRed 08:58, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) Capitalistroadster 18:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * A friendly request to Wincoote - please don't post a lengthy 'rebuttal' under every vote that runs counter to your opinion. Thanks. Radiant! 09:49, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * It is a standard practice on controversial discussions. It is not "friendly" to attempt to deny me a right of replyWincoote 17:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It is not standard to repeat your own opinion dozens of times. I'm not denying you anything, I'm simply requesting that you not repeat yourself. A good argument is worn down in repetition; a bad argument simply remains bad no matter how often it is repeated. Radiant! 21:14, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have made many different arguments, some of which only occurred to me at a later stage. Wincoote 11:24, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry, I'm a little new at this, but when I tried to update the vdf log, I accidentally forgot to change the PageName field in the last step. So now the entry is screwed up and I don't know how to fix it. Someone please help DaveTheRed 09:36, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Yay! someone fixed it! DaveTheRed 10:08, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Borderline keep - it's highly verifiable - Wikipedia has much almanac-like information - but it would date a bit easily - David Gerard 12:38, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This is arbitrary, and so are Golfers with most PGA Tour wins (meaning 20+ wins), Most PGA Tour wins in a year (meaning 8 or more), and List of golfers with most major title wins (meaning 5 or more). As can be seen from the varying quantities (20, 8, 5) this is a very arbitrary category. Wikipedia is not the Guinness book of records. However, the category also includes Official World Golf Rankings, which is very notable and should in fact be the correct way of displaying this. Since there is an official standard, I would suggest we delete the non-official ones. Radiant! 13:53, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I created this page. Wikipedia is an almanac. It won't "date" any more than any other article which requires updating because I will be updating it, and others can easily do so. It is a totally different thing from the Official World Golf Rankings. It is not arbitary to select different numbers of events for differnt lists because the are more tour events than majors and a player can play more events in a career than in a season. The numbers are in each case designed to show which are the really distinguished players. All of the criteria of inclusion of tourmaments are official and all of this information can be confirmed from the official sites of the leading golf tours. There is no subjectivity involved whatsoever. This information is fundamental for the comparison of the career achievements of professional golfers and cannot be better represented in any other form. I consider these lists to be absolutely fundamental to Wikipedia's coverage of professional golf. They list the most widely used objective criteria for assessing golfers' achievements, and provide a context for the claims made about golfer's level of distinction in their individual articles, which are often difficult to assess unless you have a very good knowledge of the sport. The World Rankings (I wrote that article too by the way) shift every week and are actually more subjective and controversial. They also only go back to 1986, so they are completely useless for assessing most of the greats of the game.
 * I suspect that Radiant!'s involvement here is intended as revenge for my exposure of him as a practioner of "extreme deletion" a so-called "sport" in which points are awarded for getting legitimate articles deleted - see the link on his user page unless he has removed it now to protect his credibility.
 * An ad hominem doesn't substantiate anything. You didn't bother to check what I've been doing the past weeks, which is categorizing every article on Dead End Pages. You didn't bother to check your private mailbox here, where I explained that. You didn't bother to double-check my user page before accusing me of changing it, since I didn't change it. And you didn't bother to check the obvious markings on both the Extreme Deletion page and my user page indicating that neither is in any way serious. You should read up on Civility, Wikiquette and Good Faith before making wild allegations like these. Radiant! 19:06, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * I knew what you were doing and I don't think it is a good use of time. You have noted yourself that the votes for deletion page is overburdened. I don't think your approach is beneficial. The dead end pages system is obselete imo because it ignores the category system. I did read your message. I don't accept that a disclaimer makes the ridiculous joke you signed up for legitimate. I couldn't check your user page because the system was frozen, as it has been much of the time for the last few days. Wincoote 23:08, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't understand what I wrote. The Dead End Pages is very relevant, since most of them are valid pages that aren't categorized yet. Hence, I categorize them, and that is a useful activity. The VfD system is more burdened than it used to, and that is unfortunate, but it isn't overburdened as of yet, and anyway that is no reason to stop cleanup. And the system hasn't been frozen the last few days, and you know it because you have made substantial edits. Radiant! 09:49, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * The system has been frozen at times. When I tried to check your page I had two copies of Wikipedia open, one to edit this article and another to look at your user page. The latter timed out twice.Wincoote 17:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to always assume good faith and not assume revenge. Also, the "extreme deletion" page is satire and has the heading "This page is satire, and we must point this out to the humor impaired as it does not represent any official or unofficial Wikipedia policy, past or present.".Carrp | Talk 17:28, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to rely on assumptions one way or the other as he has made many nominations which go against established consensus. Wincoote 17:39, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This does not go against the established consensus. It merely goes against your opinion. Radiant! 19:06, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * The nomination is by a user who registered on 21 Feb, and appears not to be aware of the range of articles to be found in Wikipedia. It's not just for six thousand word essays about philosophy and physics. Wincoote 17:26, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I registered on Feb. 15th, not the 21st. I admit that still makes me relatively new, but I have been studying the vdf pages and the deletion policy. The fact that there are people agreeing with me means I can't be wholly off-base. Secondly, as far as the article goes, I'm not saying this information is not useful, just that it would probably fit better in some other form. We could probably make an infinite number of lists about what golfers won which tournaments. Who chooses the criteria for the lists? I think this info would be better represented either a) appended to the relevant golfer's articles or b) by having one article devoted to all such lists. DaveTheRed 20:55, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The information can and should be mentioned in the relevant articles, but that only performs part of the function. It does not provide any context to assess the significace of the players win taly against that of other players. Having the information the site makes it easier to add these details to individual articles. I have already started to add the appropriate links. Wincoote 22:56, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Why can't it perform the rest of the function, as you say? Why can't we provide context in the relevent articles? Can we not say "John Doe has won 26 PGA tournaments, the 6th largest number of wins for one person" in his article? DaveTheRed 00:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course there should be statements like that, but not instead of the table. It is more cumbersome to keep up to date. Are you offering to do it for every player for the next forty years or so like I am planning to update the table? It wouldn't show relative numbers or the names of the comparable players for comparison unless there was a whole paragraph in each case - is the table in a less digestible form. And the only way to keep such statements up to date, is to keep the table up to date, which clearly demonstrates how useful it is. Wincoote 08:16, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Why have one article? This information relates to different tours, each of which have there own section. I will be adding the articles to each section, if I have not already done so in all cases. The specific titles tell people exactly what they can find. A single overall title would have to be vaguer and would be less likely to encourage use. Wincoote 22:56, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are plenty of arbitrary cut-offs in sports. See MLB players who have hit 30 or more home runs before the All-Star break or List of pitchers who have struck out 18 or more batters in a nine-inning baseball game. As long as the pages are updated on a regular basis, I see no problem with keeping them. Carrp | Talk 17:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't how this can be useful, actually. --Neigel von Teighen 17:30, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you able to give any reasons for your opinion? What basis can it have apart from a conviction that Wikipedia should not cover golf? But Wikpedia does cover sport in detail - tens of thousands of articles probably. If one is interested in professional golf these articles are among the most useful in Wikipedia - far more useful than most of the individual profiles. It should be noted that the voting has been appended to the least important article, but the result is supposed to apply to all of them. Wincoote 17:45, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, you yourself tend not to give any reasons for your votes other than personal attacks. Anyway, yes, Wikipedia should cover golf, but it's not particularly useful to make four separate lists of people who have won an arbitrary number of tournaments. Particularly since there's an official ranking already on the site. Radiant! 19:06, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have already explained the limitations of the rankings. Read the articles for more details. They did not exist until 1986. Jack Nicklaus is nobody in the eyes of the rankings. Full historical records of old rankings are not even included on the official site. The oldest year end table is for 2001. Tournament wins are OVERWHELMINGLY the criteria on which golfers' careers are judged by posperity. There is not the slightest intention on the part of the operators of the official rankings that they should replace the role of tournament wins. Wincoote 23:12, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. These articles seem to have somewhat arbitrary levels set &mdash; why not, say, 17 wins? (Yes, I am aware that base-10 counting is quite common.) As Radiant! notes above, there is an officially established ranking system. If the consensus is that there should also be a list by number of Champions Tour wins, then there should simply be a list of all winners, not only winners that have cleared some arbitrary bar, in my opinion. HyperZonktalk 18:05, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * If you want to extend the lists down to one win you are welcome to do so. I do not have infinite time. Every reputable golf site has such lists with a cut off point of more than one win. Wincoote 22:56, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep all of these. These are indications of notable golfers throughout history based on the number of tour wins. We have a commitment to keep the lists up to date so keep.
 * DeleteThis is just a meaningless table which could/should be incorporated in more detailed biographies elsewhere or even a researched page on golf tours etc.  This is not even an article. Giano 23:00, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * In the last couple of weeks, I have written articles about every significant professional golf tour which did not already have one (about fifteen) and made major enhancements about to the one about the most prominent tour: the PGA Tour. There is still a separate place for records in a reference work. In any sporting reference book, you are likely to find a mixture of text based and tabular content. Why should Wikipedia be different? If these tables are meaningless, why can the like be found in almost every reference book concerned with professional golf? Are they all doing something stupid? Wincoote 23:08, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, concur with Hyperzonk and Giano. Megan1967 23:30, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Megan is a hyper-deletionist of sports articles despite demonstrating no knowledge of sport. Like Giano, her deletion vote may be motivated by past conflicts with me (in his case there is little doubt of this, ever since I corrected some clear factual errors of his, which led him to engage in personal abuse, he had been tracking my user page, looking for opportunities to attack me). No one would be voting to delete this information if it was in the main articles for the tours, but it is much more useful in this context because links can be provided from the indiviual articles directly to the relevant information. Links to the main articles, such as PGA Tour would be much less clear, especially as I continue to expand those articles. Wincoote 08:16, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Normally I ignore comments like yours however, I have no idea about any past conflicts with you Wincoote. If there is, please reference where this past conflict occured otherwise please desist with these wild accusations. Megan1967 22:30, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * An ad hominem doesn't substantiate anything. Wincoote, you have made your point, now you must allow others to make theirs. There is no point in reiterating your arguments under every vote that isn't to your liking. We understand you feel passionate about the subject, but arguably that also means you aren't objective about it. Radiant! 09:49, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment There have been no detailed rebuttals of the many arguments for retention that I have put forward by anyone who demonstrates a good understanding of professional golf. All the deletion votes are apparently by people who do not know the subject.Wincoote 08:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * And once more, an ad hominem doesn't substantiate anything. Radiant! 09:49, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * My last "insult" to Wincoote included the words "Grow up!" Giano 09:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's been two months now since I offended your pride by pointing out some simple factual errors you had made and you've been stalking me ever since. I haven't inititiated any of the contacts between us since early January. Wincoote 17:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but that is irrelevant to this discussion, isn't it? Radiant! 21:14, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I would vote to delete or rename Golfers with 20 Champions Tour wins because I think it's a bit arbitrary to say 20, also it's quite high so there aren't that many golfers on it. I would prefer if it was renamed as "Golfers with most Champions Tour wins" and started at 5, 10 or 20. However I think that the other lists such as Most PGA Tour wins in a year and List of golfers with most major title wins are worth keeping as it is useful information. Perhaps it might be best to standardise the start at 5 though, then as the list grows longer and those with only 5 become less notable then move start to 10 then 20 etc. However, if it's all or nothing I'd prefer to keep all of them. -- Lochaber 11:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Realised I should probably say why I think they should be kept. Firstly, IMO these list are not the same as the official rankings. Rankings look at a certain point in time whereas these lists allow comparisions between golfers who were playing at different time. Secondly, they certainly aren't meaningless, they might be meaningless to certain people in the same way that an article about the International Congress of Mathematicians is meaningless to me but I recognise that for those with interest in the subject they do have meaning. Thirdly, on the idea of them being arbitrary, Wincoote has answered the questions about put to him about the cut-offs being arbitrary (except for the Golfers with 20 Champions Tour wins), anyone is welcome to expand the other articles to include all players who have won each tournament. Fourthly, while the facts can and probably are being incorporated into the golfers biographies, the purpose of these articles is to have a focal point where golfers can be compared. As someone who doesn't know much about golf I wouldn't know which golfer has won the most PGA tournaments and I would have to go searching loads of biographies to find that out. As for there being seperate articles, well they are separate tournaments that people may look up seperately. -- Lochaber 11:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Also if we are standardising then it might be best to rename List of golfers with most major title wins to "Golfers with most major titles wins" particularly because I would like to see little bit at the top about what the major titles are. I know it's at the top of the table but I think it worth having a little explanation at the top as all the articles are accessible in Category:Golf Records, separate from the tournaments and someone like me who doesn't know much about golf would like to know why those tournaments are major and others aren't, do more people play in them? -- Lochaber 11:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, but I still say delete. However, I should qualify that, as a golf fanatic, when I wrote "meaningless" I meant "meaningless" in the context of this article standing alone.  This table and the other articles need to be incorporated where they are relevant.  The titles are neither "user friendly" or likely to typed in by anyone seeking information.  If they are just here so they can be referred to from other pages then they may as well be there in the first place. Giano 12:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I see your point and I agree the titles are not user-friendly. I think there need to be standardisation in the titles. IMO "Golfers with (the?) most PGA Tour wins" is a good title b/c it is that's the kind of thing that one might stick in google or any search engine if you wanted to know. The others should be called "Golfers with (the?) most PGA Tour wins in one year", "Golfers with most major title wins", "Golfers with (the?) most Champions Tour wins" and so forth. I also think that they need to be expanded. -- Lochaber 13:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * On combining I suppose it's a style issue, I wouldn't agree that they should be combined with the individual tour / tournament pages just because I think it makes those articles messy. To me, who as I mentioned knows v. little about golf, I would go to the PGA tour page to find out what it is, but I'm not necessarily be interested in who has the most wins. I would favour creating a seperate articles for the things like the list of leading money winners by year as well. If you look at the Routes section in the Ryanair article, which btw is a featured article, you'll see there is a link for a seperate page for the destinations. It makes the Ryanair page easier to read, if you stuck a big list in there it would interrupt the flow of the article. I suppose it's not an issue if the parent article is quite short but I think that the golf tour articles can be expanded further - like the PGA TOUR article already has been - and separating these types of things saves clean-up later. Anyway, that's just my opinion and there is a certain presumption on my part that the tour / tournament articles can be expanded to the point where this becomes an issue and that the lists will be regularly updated. -- Lochaber 13:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Apologies for writing so much but I just want to get it all out there... -- Lochaber 13:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be a good idea if Windcoote is keen to retain these tables, he amalgamated them into ONE large article entitled "Golfing statistics" or "Golfing records" or something similar, where they could all be lumped together; that way the index box at the top of the page would make each table and section readily available.  But as small scrappy little pages of one table or so each with little or no explanatory information  delete is the only option Giano 13:52, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I can see your point but I think that combining all these articles will just give you one entirely messy page. I think your idea would work if what there is right now was all there was ever going to be, but keeping them separate gives them room to expand beyond what they currently are. Having them in Category:Golf Records allows them to all be accessed in the handy manner you describe, though maybe it should be changed to Golf statistics as these lists aren't actually records and the official rankings definitely aren't. Anyway I think we've had our say now (or at least I've said enough ;-)), it's really up to others now to decide what is best. -- Lochaber 15:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no minimum size for a Wikipedia article, and there are tens of thousands which are shorter than these articles (especially the other three larger ones - the debate has been cunningly attached to the smallest article). The Champions Tour list is the shortest because the Champions Tour is much younger than the PGA Tour or the majors. It is intended to include players with a similar level of achievement to the other lists. I have written dozens of golf articles recently, on tours, tournaments, and individual players. I am rapidly boosting the number of links between them. The value of having separate list is illustrated by, for example, the link in Greg Norman which goes directly to the one list out of the four which is relevant to him (Golfers with most PGA tour wins), and not to the other three which aren't. Wincoote 17:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added players with four and three majors to the majors list, and will get down to one on this list eventually, though not on the others. I have also moved it to Golfers with most major title wins as requested by Lochaber, expanded the introduction to the list, and added a link to majors, which hadn't been written when I did the list (the article start dates are 31 Jan and 15 Feb). Wincoote 17:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Arbitrary list. Jayjg (talk) 17:23, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What is arbitary about it? Do you just mean this list or all of them. They are not all of quite the same nature (and once again it is inappropriate that the discussion has been appended to the articles which is clearly the least significant of the four). There is a great lack of detail in the negative votes. I should have mentioned before that the level of 20 wins on the PGA Tour actually has huge and official significance. It confers life membership of the tour, which means that a player no longer has to finish in the top 125 on the money list to retain his tour card. There may be a similar rule for the Champions Tour. I will go and look it up. Wincoote 17:31, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't find a full statement of eligibility criteria for Champions Tour events, but by inference from the profiles of Champions Tour members on the official site, the eqivalent status is "Top 30 on the all time money list" which would be much harder to maintain as many of the lines of such a table would change every week, rather than a maximum of one. Wincoote 17:40, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Windcoote there is an immense amount of detail and helpful suggestions in the negative vote, why don't you stop repeating yourself and read them Giano 17:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur with Giano. Radiant! 21:14, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have acted on two helpful suggestions, neither of which came from either of you. This vote appears to be the only one on this page in which Giano has participated. Whatever one thinks of this article, it is not credible to suggest that it is more deserving of deletion than all of the others. Giano's involvement here is clearly based on a personal vendetta rather than a concern for the well-being of Wikipedia. Despite his claim that he has stopped tracking my page, which I already knew to be almost certainly untrue, he appeared here just after this debate was mentioned on my user page. Wincoote 11:24, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Please compose yourself, and  confine your hysterical tantrums  to your user page where they belong. Giano 11:50, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * And once more, Wincoote, an ad hominem doesn't substantiate anything. We're trying to keep a sensible discussion here, and your aim seems to be to insult everyone who disagrees with you. Your antics haven't convinced me to change my vote to anything else than delete. Radiant! 12:16, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lists like these are encyclopedic. -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.