Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gopher Dunes


 * 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) 23:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Gopher Dunes

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

Non-notable track. Prod was removed with comment that there are 4470 Google results. There are indeed many Ghits for a search on Gopher Dunes. However, a search for "Gopher Dunes" Norfolk renders only 65 Ghits, none more notable than YouTube or local websites describing local attractions. No reliable sources, no indication of notability. Crusio (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand - There has to be information in print and magazines about Gopher Dunes. Besides, I hear stories about people taking their quads and motorcycles to Gopher Dune on every major summer holiday. GVnayR (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete without appropriate refs, Keep with them. -Falcon8765 (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I did a search for "Gopher Dunes" Courtland and it renders 6570 Google results. Since Norfolk is the county name and Courtland is the community name that the track is located near, Gopher Dunes is more notable than what other people believe it is. GVnayR (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The number of Ghits is hardly relevant here. If those are all blogs, personal webpages, and such, they do not constitute reliable third-party sources that are needed to establish notability. You should perhaps read those policies. --Crusio (talk) 09:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 *  Delete . While public access tracks ought to be covered somehow, although probably not as stand alone articles, the "references" indicate that this is the name of a company, and as such we need it to meet our notability tests, WP:CORP in this case, otherwise we'll just end up collecting promotionally oriented material.  Independent third party sources that discuss the subject would be required.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to accept DoubleBlue's references below, unless it is shown that http://www.oxfordreview.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1677493 is a blog, or that http://www.racerxcanada.com/news/4873/sturgess-cycle-national-track-tour-gopher-dunes/ was a paid advertisement. "Often cited as the “Toughest track in Canada,” Gopher Dunes has left quite a mark ..." sounds impressive enough to make me think it warrants an independent article.  The blog doesn't count for much.  The video coverage is definitely a positive indicator of notability.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Verifiable place and I think a NPOV, NOR stub can be maintained and expanded as more reliable sources drip in. Here's a press clipping from today and there are sources about the course as a stop on the national tour.    Double Blue  (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Nobody ever doubted whether the place was verifiable. As far as I can see, the references you added to the article are a tourism website, some local news sheets, and some blogs, not exactly independent reliable sources. Notability is not attained by merely existing and being used. --Crusio (talk) 08:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nomination withdrawn I'm not convinced of the notability of this track, but there seems a consensus between the other participants in this debate. --Crusio (talk) 09:41, 30 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.