Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Golf Index


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 08:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

World Golf Index

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

I restored the article as per request. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. PROD nominator stated "No reliable sources or indication that this index is used by any golf writers or fans." Besides that, there is a conflict of interest, as the person who started the article is the publisher of the World Golf Index website (check here). So, to make it clear if this article is notable or not, I felt that it was better to bring this page to AFD. Carioca (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for a myriad of reasons, WP:COI, propritary informaton which is designed to be paid for, a lack of G-hits (only 22) which are only augmented by only COI-packed press releases, and the fact that this is impossible to compare since women and men are mixed into the same chart when they rarely play in the same tournament.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 07:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice." Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," although these may positively correlate with it. A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard. If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable. For someone to state "as a fact" that they cannot be compared, or are "impossible" to compare, is simply an opinion... and then to use that as a "reason for deletion" is incredibly unintelligent. I am the publisher of the World Golf Index, and therefore the "verifiable source", and I can be reached "anytime" via the World Golf Index email that is posted on the website. Popularity on Google is not a "reason for deletion" either... and as Google does not own the world... or the internet, and the World Golf Index includes "the world", the website gets traffic from all over the world. I posted this simple article on Wikipedia factually describing what it is in case a user might be interested in that information. This was done unbiased, which was the reason for a short and factual article, in the spirit of an "encyclopedia" sharing knowledge, and I had little concern for a conflict of interest simply because I didn't think there was one. —Preceding comment added by Wgiwiki (talk • contribs) 21:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete' (posted Wikipedia guideline policy)
 * The World Golf Index is a performance ranking comparing performance from various pro golf tours... this is the fact!
 * Weak Keep lacks references and needs expanding Ijanderson (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, further responding to the first comment above, I am not sure about the level of knowledge this person has for some things, but every organization and corporation that uses media, whether they have a specific media department, or not, drafts and posts their own "press releases". Are they all a "conflict of interest"? Obviously not. Being "worthy of notice" in this form or forum, being the Wikipedia, is simply an opinion, or collective opinion. Accordingly, the World Golf Index should be "worthy of notice", simply because it exists, has some history, is novel and interesting to some people and, may be to others. (Publisher of the World Golf Index) Wgiwiki (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete fairly new ranking system that needs time for news coverage. ArcAngel (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I am trying to be respectful of other comments, and fair comments are appreciated... but some are not very well thought out.  Supported by "posted Wikipedia policy" as previously noted above, being "fairly new", or "needs time for news coverage" are NOT "reasons for deletion".
 * Yes, but you'd expect an index like this to have much more than press releases coming from search engine results. If there's nothing but press releases in the results, it's almost automatic that notability has not been found. It was not meant to be a criticism that this was self-promoting.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 07:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course it is "criticism", all of which I accept. No need to apologize for it as that is your job here, and is the point of this forum and this discussion, but because content is important to "all" people (including me) who use Wikipedia, if you are going to comment in here in the capacity of an adjudicator, which you have the right to do, then it is your "job" in that capacity, to do so "honestly" and "objectively".

"Encarta" Definition of "criticism" (you can pick which context you feel is applicable): 1. act of criticizing: a spoken or written opinion or judgment of what is wrong or bad about somebody or something; 2. disapproval: spoken or written opinions that point out one or more faults of somebody or something; 3. assessment of creative work: considered judgment of or discussion about the qualities of something, especially a creative work.

== Further, you keep missing the point here, as you are using the term "notability" only in the context that is synonymous with "popularity" when the "Wikipedia guidelines", as I previously posted above, clearly allow for past, present, and future tense and context of that term. In other words, it clearly states that "notability" means that a topic should be "notable" OR "worthy of notice"... and that "popularity" alone is NOT a "reason for deletion". The reason for this is because Wikipedia is an "encyclopedia" and generally people do not use encyclopedias to search for information they already know, logically, someone uses an encyclopedia to discover information they did not know... and obviously, if something is unknown well then it may tend to be unpopular in some cases... I hope you are understanding my argument here, as for obvious reasons, I want this article to stay. I believe it is "worthy of notice", and that people who are interested in golf, would want to know about the World Golf Index... and as you previously stated you feel it should be deleted, and your only reason seems to be, that in your opinion it is not popular enough... which again I remind you, is not criteria for deletion. Wgiwiki (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC) -1- That as I have previously advanced here, according to Wikipedia guidelines, "popularity" alone does not establish "notability", and that a topic's "worthiness of notice" is to be considered also, and, further responding to your most recent post wherein you stated, "search results which fail to go beyond what is required to meet notability", I do not understand what you mean by this, as I could not find anywhere in Wikipedia deletion policy "exactly" what this search results requirement is. -2- That the World Golf Index is "worthy of notice" as it has the same level of merit as the Rolex or World Golf Rankings. (Note: It is "not" impossible to compare pro golfers from different major golf tours, and the World Golf Index is potentially a fairer comparison than the World Ranking system, as it is less incremental, and assigns the same value to each event. The World Ranking system is very convoluted as it assigns a different value to each event based on various people's perception and opinion of that value... and is therefore also vulnerable to politics)...(and so that you don't misunderstand, I love the World Rankings and do not consider it competition... but if I were them, I would probably tweak it a bit). -3- And that, there is "precedent" for this article, as it has been posted for almost a year without issue until now. (Publisher: World Golf Index) Wgiwiki (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Above I have attempted to to answer you and present my position in a diplomatic manner, but what is clearly "NOT ACCEPTABLE" here is the fact that you have edited your original comments above to now include the statement "propritary informaton which is designed to be paid for" (inclusive of your spelling errors) which I consider to be an offensive and slanderous attack on "my property" being the World Golf Index. You are deliberately attempting to imply that there is some sort of sinister money making scam and motive for the World Golf Index, which is absolutely NOT TRUE. All the World Golf Index information is posted FREE of Charge. Go there and look. Why are you attacking my property?? I am giving you the opportunity to retract your FALSE statements, or I will be reporting them... and you should now either post an intelligent reason for deleting my article, or leave this discussion.  (Publisher: World Golf Index)  Wgiwiki (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Please, be civil. The use of the term proprietary within my nomination was to say that this was information you compiled and indexed on your own into a formula you want to be common in your field. If you're not intending to sell the information, I apologize, and there was no attempt to attack you at all. I am just basing my nomination on a lack of this index being commonly distributed within the field and the search results which fail to go beyond what is required to meet notability.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 07:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Response: I appreciate that you have taken more care in explaining yourself. Your apology is accepted. Please accept my apologies for also stepping over the line. I am obligated to defend my property as we may not be the only people reading this.
 * I am asking you to reconsider your nomination on the following grounds:


 * 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.