Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marshes Golf Club


 * 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. some WP:RS improvement - clear consensus to keep - references to WP:GNG and WP:CLUB (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Marshes Golf Club

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD, Non-notable Golf Club (Fails WP:CLUB), possible COI. Mt king  (edits)  22:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

delete I made the proposed deletion that was contested, so I think we can assume I agree. On the other hand I arrived at the article via Mtking's post on COI board so we'll have seen the same evidence. Failedwizard (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I created the article, so obviously I believe it is a notable subject. Thanks for adding the additional references Eastmain. Andy.w.sparks 20:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Article currently has scant third-party coverage (N and ORG indicate there should be significant reliable third-party coverage), and mostly citations to the subject itself. JFHJr (㊟) 08:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Per Wikipedia: Articles for deletion, Section D, “Sourcing Search”, #3 - “In the event you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination.” Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per addition of reliable sources to article, and their availability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article now has seven references in it, including an article from the Ottawa Sun. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note to closing Admin : Due to the drive-by nature of some of Northamerica1000's afd contibutions at least one admin is discounting comments not based on notability guidelines. (see here) Mt  king  (edits)  09:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Mtking -- assuming that you are not simply seeking to attack the editor, what in his comment here is not based on wp notability guidelines? The existence of notability due to the existence of references in articles such as that of the Sun, it strikes me, is a core wp notability concept.
 * Comment - Here's the link addition I was referring to, to clarify: "Seniors shooting for The Marshes", originally published in the ''Ottawa Sun. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:15, 27 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,  Rcsprinter  (talk)  20:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I added another ref.  It seems like a topic we should have in the encyclopedia so that readers can find out more about it, and it meets WP:CLUB.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The reference added above, along with other references now in the article, appear to collectively qualify topic notability per WP:GNG. Here is the link that was added to the article by user:Unscintillating - "The Marshes to celebrate 10 years in community.". The topic is covered in multiple reliable sources, beyond a passing mention. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per the references that exist, including those added by Eastmain.  Meets GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:42, 26 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.