Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of golf courses in Portugal


 * 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. v/r - TP 02:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

List of golf courses in Portugal

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Lack of notability and references. WP is not a directory. TBM10 (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – Per Wikipedia is not a directory, the article is appropriate, as the article has an organized focus and is not, per Wikipedia directory guidelines, like "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". The article can also serve to promote the creation of new articles for notable golf courses. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – Also, the article completely passes all eight points of WP:NOTDIRECTORY guidelines.


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There are reliable sources in the Portuguese Golf Federation website (haven't checked one by one but it is more or less the same list). Unsure on whether we need a huge list of mostly redlinks. - Nabla (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – The article should not be deleted for not passing general nobatility guideline, because it passes specific WP:NOTDIRECTORY notability guidelines. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, this is nothing more than an index of articles subdivided in the most obvious way. The nom and sole delete !voter are confused as to how notability guidelines apply here.  They would only have an argument if there were no notable golf courses in Portugal, something that has not been argued here and which appears to be untrue based on the bluelinks.  "Unreferenced" is also not a valid deletion argument at all; what matters is whether the content is verifiable, and I have a hard time believing that whether a golf course is located in Portugal is something that cannot be verified.  As long as we have articles on notable golf courses, listing them by the country of location is rather beyond question.  This is far from the first time that WP:NOTDIR has been wrongly invoked to delete a completely standard list (not just by this nom), and here its invocation is nothing more than a WP:VAGUEWAVE.  NOTDIR only has relevance here regarding the kind of content this list should have: this list should not function as a business directory giving contact info, hours, rates, etc., and normally we don't want lists to be indiscriminate by including every one of the list's subject that exists regardless of whether it's notable.  I could see an argument that we do want golf course lists to be comprehensive, however, because they occupy quite a bit more real estate than your typical business and there are necessarily far fewer of them per locality...but that's a matter for talk page discussion.  postdlf (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Passes WP:DIRECTORY. SL93 (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete almost all red links. the fact that you can't use this list for much more than working out these small courses exist. there are probably 10,000s of golf courses worldwide, are we going to create lists for each geographic region they're in? LibStar (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Libstar, you have not presented any valid reasons for deletion. The cure for "almost all redlinks" is to make articles for those that merit it, and remove those that don't.  Even assuming that none of the redlinks merit articles, I count ten bluelinks, which is definitely enough to anchor a list.  The "use" of the list is to help browsing and navigation of articles, and to aid in article creation by identifying missing topics.  This list could also be further annotated so as to compare the courses by area, date opened, etc.  As for your rhetorical question, it's reasonable  to assume that a corresponding list would exist at least for every country that has notable golf courses.  Don't worry; no one will force you to work on those.  postdlf (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that someone is concerned about the (possible) worse quality of WP if we have thousands of bad articles or concerned about the (possibly) unrealistic perspective that it is possible to write "everything about everything" is a valid and reasonable concern. No need to downtalk. - Nabla (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Provisional Keep per the points of WP:NOTDIR under the proviso that only golf courses which have been demonstrated to be notable are included on the list. If there are not enough to form a decent list, the list is not necessary. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 15:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep no policy-based reason for deletion articulated. Jclemens (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2011 (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.