Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pat Carter (golfer)


 * 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   delete. the guideline for amateur players is that they need to be successful at a national level and the argument that they aren't hasnt been refuted Spartaz Humbug! 08:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Pat Carter (golfer)

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

Reason the page should be deleted Abc518 (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Question about notability Abc518 (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I wrote the article. Carter is a notable amateur golfer who has garnered state and national honors in amateur golf. michfan2123 (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Response: Amateur golf doesn't even have it's own article, why should it's players?--Abc518 (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Response: By your logic, no amateur golfer should have a page. Should we start deleting all of the notable amateur golfer's (Bobby Jones, Francis Ouimet, William C. Campbell, etc.) pages then? michfan2123 (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Response: William C. Campbell is the golf hall of fame, and as for the other two, perhaps they should be. However, I wont nominate dead people. --Abc518 (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am unclear. Are you saying the articles on 13 time major winner and HoF member Bobby Jones, and 1913 US Open champion Ouimet should be nominated for deletion? I sure hope not. And if someone is not noteworthy, it is irrelevant whether they are alive or not, so why the reticence in nominating their articles? Finally, amateur golf probably should have it's own article, or at least a section in amateur sports. wjemather bigissue 22:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Domination of a top-level subnational political unit's top golf tournament + various other awards combine for enough to merit inclusion.  young  american  (wtf?) 13:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. wjemather bigissue  21:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Extraordinary level of achievement in dominating the state amateur championship is notable, as highlighted by the USA Today article. wjemather bigissue 21:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Kind of a tough one. There are no google news hits, ESPN's got nothing (except for the wide receiver, who's a different guy). Seems like he's done well in some tournaments, and I might even entertain that amateur golf is a non-league kind of "top level". With this kind of ambiguity I'd defer to the guidelines at WP:Athlete. He doesn't meet them. Shadowjams (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not because amateur golf in itself is unworthy of inclusion, as suggested above, but because he's not sufficiently successful within it. The article notes he has qualified for the US Amateur, as good a benchmark as there is, 12 times, but never bettered the quarter-finals. Nor has he progressed further than that in the U.S. Mid-Amateur, which is a weaker competition. On the national level he is a good player, but not spectacular - it may just be that his competition at local level is unusually weak. EJBH (talk) 19:20, 8 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.