Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Par


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 21:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

King Par

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

Notability not established for this superstore. There is an unverified claim of being number 1 on a magazine list of 100 best golf shops, a citation was never forthcoming and if this is the sole claim of notability it seems dubious marketing cruft, at best. In accordance with WP:BEFORE, the article has been marked as an advert for over 2 years with no sign of being re-written to address the problem. Ash (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BEFORE is not about doing nothing except waiting on the sidelines for two years. It is about you searching for sources yoursself, before nominating articles for deletion.  You've given no indication that you have done that at all.  This is a collaboratively written encyclopaedia.  See User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage for the long-standing procedures in this regard.  Moreover, AFD only works if editors put in the effort to put deletion policy into action, which means checking that sources exist.  See Guide to deletion for more on that.  Writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem, and no-effort AFD discussions often come to the wrong conclusions. Here's some Clue: Putting the effort in enables one to state, as I can, that there are no sources that cover this subject apart from press releases, corporate autobiography, and trivial incidental coverage in sources that are actually discussing other subjects.  For examples: The patent lawsuit (Izzo v. King Par) coverage, what little of that there is, doesn't document the company itself.  And this article is actually about a person, and says nothing at all about this company.  Uncle G (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Copying the same comments to all of Ash's AFDs look like harassment to me. Joe Chill (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All of Ash's nominations are the same: Nobody, including the nominator, had done anything for some arbitrary period of time. However, I notice that it took you some hours to note, as below, that my comments were actually tailored to the articles at hand, in contrast. Uncle G (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your comments copied in all of his AFDs are bitey. Hell, you even said a personal attack in an AFD earlier which is really funny especially because you have been an admin since 2005. Joe Chill (talk) 02:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Yet again, unless you can prove that your user pages are "long-standing procedures", please direct me to a real bit of guidance rather than your user pages if you intend to educate me.—Ash (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The user page shows you where in policy the procedure comes from, as well as for how many years this has been expected practice of Wikipedia editors. Read.  Learn.  Uncle G (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He said no multiple times. Do you know what the heck no is? Do you know when continuing something is pointless like on Ash's AFDs? Joe Chill (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per the second part of Uncle G's harassing comment. Joe Chill (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Simply being ranked in a magazines arbitrary opinion list of stores doesn't establish notability. I think it fails WP:CORP. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There seem to be plenty of sources to work through and it will also be covered in golfing periodicals which are not online. The article just seems WP:IMPERFECT rather than hopeless and so should be kept for further work as Wikipedia does not have a deadline. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I found this comprehensive article from Plunkett's Sports Industry Almanac. WP:N and WP:V are met. There is also some coverage on Google News Archive; although these sources are mostly about people who are affiliated with King Par, this is indicative of offline sources that are about this superstore. Cunard (talk) 21:07, 11 August 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.