Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultra lob wedge


 * 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   redirect to Lob wedge. JForget 12:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ultra lob wedge

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

As previously agreed on the talk page, there is entirely insufficient verifiable content for a stand alone article. What content there is has already been merged into Lob wedge. However the creator of this article has returned to insist that it stand alone or go through this process, so here it is. The fact is an ultra lob wedge is not a commonly used term and clubs that would fall into this category are most often referred to simply as lob wedges or x-degree wedges. wjemather bigissue 09:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions.  —wjemather bigissue  09:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]] Strong keep — As creator. It should not be redirected to lob wedge as they are two separate things.  -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The clue is in the name. An ultra lob wedge is a lob wedge. They are not two separate things at all. Check out the major wedge manufacturers websites – none of them use the phrase ultra lob wedge, for example Titleist (Vokey). wjemather bigissue 21:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nominator's reasoning. Tewapack (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Since an ultra lob wedge is a type of lob wedge and there are no length issues in the Lob wedge article, the appropriate thing was indeed to merge it into there. Reyk  YO!  23:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|15px]] Delete or Redirect to Lob wedge. Content has already been successfully merged.  There is clearly not enough content for a full article on this subject, and there is plenty of room on Lob wedge for all of the information presented here.  There is no reason for this article to remain, except for the original author's perceived ownership of the article.   Snotty Wong   babble 23:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to lob wedge ... it's a valid way to cover items in the same category... especially when each item does not have enough sources for their own pageArskwad (talk) 04:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to lob wedge and Salt, per Snottywong's reasoning.  PK  T (alk)  20:43, 29 June 2010 (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.