Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Golf Index (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Also, User:Wgiwiki, for future notice; even though you are the copyright holder of this material, you agree to the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 and GFDL by submitting it. Knowing that, be careful with what you put up in the future, as you don't have the power to have it removed from the Wikipedia servers. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D  06:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

World Golf Index
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Entirely non-notable rankings system, and I'm at a loss to understand how this survived its previous nomination. Zero google news hits and web hits that consist solely of press releases indicate clearly that the wider world and especially the golfing press pays it no notice whatsoever. There must be coverage in reliable sources to establish notability, and in this case that is evidently not possible. wjemather bigissue 21:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. wjemather bigissue  21:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:N --Bsay USD CSU [ π ]  23:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This entry in the Wikipedia "encyclopedia" has been posted for almost 2 years, and the reason it survived the last episode of "articles for deletion", is because according to Wikipedia guidelines, "popularity" alone does not establish "notability", and that a topic's "worthiness of notice" is to be considered also. {Please read them).

-- Definition from Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Entry: en·cy·clo·pe·dia Pronunciation: \in-ˌsī-klə-ˈpē-dē-ə\ Function: noun Etymology: Medieval Latin encyclopaedia course of general education, from Greek enkyklios + paideia education, child rearing, from paid-, pais child — more at few Date:1644 - - - Definition: a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject. --

Wikipedia is an "encyclopedia", as it says so right in the name noted in the logo in the top left hand corner of this page. Encyclopedias are not based on popularity, they are collections of information on topics and subjects that many people don't know about. This is "fundamental", as why would anyone regularly use an "encyclopedia" to research information they already know?? Encyclopedias are meant to provide unknown knowledge, and if people who attempt to contribute here are not interested in maintaining this fundamental theme, then perhaps they should go edit another project. (Publisher: World Golf Index) Wgiwiki —Preceding undated comment added 08:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC).


 * Comment. I am afraid you are not understanding Wikipedia correctly, and there are clear WP:COI issues with your opinion and contributions. WP is not here for you to use as another avenue to promote your wares. Please base your arguments on WP policy. The subject of articles must satisfy the general notability guideline. The length of time it has gone unnoticed without being deleted is irrelevant. Over 6 months have passed since the last AfD discussion, and still no reliable sources have covered these "rankings". It absolutely fails WP:N. wjemather bigissue 10:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

As you have stated as "a matter of fact" that I am using Wikipedia to "promote my wares" in some sinister way, is OFFENSIVE and should be deleted. That is simply NOT true! The World Golf Index is a FREE website and sells nothing. This article on Wikipedia is a simple statement of fact of what the World Golf Index is.
 * Response: I am afraid "you" are not understanding Wikipedia correctly. I have clearly indicated that I am the publisher, and which is in compliance with WP:COI.

There are many golf organizations and tour players that use this information, and with many direct links. Accordingly, any assumption you have made here on what establishes some level of popularity is merely your opinion. Further, Wikipedia WP:N has NO criteria for "hits", and clearly allows for "merit". (WP:N) "Article topics are required to be notable, or "worthy of notice". It is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may contribute." This article is "worthy of notice" and is in absolute compliance with WP:N and Wikipedia policy. (Publisher: World Golf Index) Wgiwiki —Preceding undated comment added 23:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC).


 * Whilst your defence of your product is admirable, the facts simply do not back you up. WP:N states clearly that the subject of an article must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The World Golf Index has not. wjemather bigissue 07:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The obvious fact that someone else may be able to publish something, is "not" criteria for deleting this article. (Publisher: World Golf Index) Wgiwiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.90.100 (talk) 08:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Anyone can buy a web domain, sit at home studying tournament results and create a "ranking system". An internet search fails to turn up a single neutral source for this particular one - all links are either to their site or to their press releases - so it fails WP:N. And the article's creator and main contributor is someone whose name - wgiwiki - and profile page - a link to the "ranking" homepage - strongly suggest a violation of WP:COI. There seems no reason to keep it. EJBH (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Response: Yes, and anyone can build a house... if they have the tools, material, and the will. Some just prefer to watch and make comments. If anyone can do this, then why haven't they, or you? Do you have an understanding of international copyright, or statistical copyright? Do you have press credentials? Have you researched anywhere other than a search engine on the internet? Do you even know what you are commenting on? Further, if you read the other entries on this page you would see that I have clearly disclosed that I am the publisher, which is what is required to be in compliance with WP:COI, and otherwise respecting my "profile page", well at least I have one.


 * Please remain WP:CIVIL and respect others and their opinions. Their knowledge of issue involved in compiling your site are irrelevant to this discussion. The only issue is one of notability, which can only be established through verifiability through significant coverage reliable independent (secondary) published sources. You, your website and press releases are all primary sources and, while they may be able to verify the facts, they do nothing to help establish notability. This is your opportunity to reveal where we can find significant coverage in secondary sources, in order to do precisely that. At this moment, I do not believe there is any. wjemather <sup style="color:#ff8040;">bigissue 09:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not suggest that the mere possibility of someone compiling a ranking system is a criterion for deletion. But it serves as an illustration of the need for WP:N, because without secondary sources, your system is no more notable than my hypothetical one, which I can upload onto my hypothetical webpage any time. And if I found enough golf enthusiasts they could each design their own system and create their own website. But none would be notable enough for WP unless they achieved a degree of recognition by the golfing world - hence the need for independent sources.

Regarding copyright, you are being unnecessarily defensive - my analogy didn't call for an exact copy of your system. I assume yours works by inputting golf tournament results into a formula; so another person could use a different formula to obtain different rankings. So long as they don't impede on your status - by advertising themselves as "the only complete ranking system" in ignorance of your own one, for example - they don't infringe copyright. Regarding searching for sources, no I did not look further than a search engine. Are you then implying that there are independent sources available, and that I didn't look hard enough to find them? If so, great! Provide them here, we can reference the article to them and WP:N will be restored. If not, I fail to see your point - we will still have no evidence that such sources exist, which is the crux of the argument. Finally, regarding WP:COI - I apologise, you are correct that you are not "violating" the terms. Please remember however, that you are still advised by WP:COI to exercise caution when editing or discussing an article in which you have interests. EJBH (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. This is entirely notable, because it's a very useful ranking system, and golf fans should be able to know about what this ranking system is. -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 21:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Perceived usefulness is not a criteria for inclusion. I note that you have flagged the article for rescue. How do you propose that is done given that there has been zero coverage in independent reliable sources as required by WP:N? <sub style="color:#007700;">wjemather <sup style="color:#ff8040;">bigissue 22:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It apparently has 2 external links: Its official site and the press release. Besides, if someone could rewrite the article by expanding it, the article could be improved substantially. -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 22:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, two links, neither independent. As said, it has zero independent, reliable sources. It therefore fails WP:N. Simple... EJBH (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This article has already been nominated for deletion, and no consensus have been reached. However, I've retrieved a very significant argument from there, courtesy of User:Wgiwiki:

"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.

The World Golf Index is a performance ranking comparing performance from various pro golf tours... this is the fact! 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."

- Wgiwiki

-- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 00:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's all well and good, but none of it passes the actual notability guidelines, as found at WP:N. WP requires independent sources giving "significant coverage". Currently there are no independent sources and significant coverage is zero; the only sources fail to be "independent of the subject". By the guidelines then, this article is not sufficiently notable. As I've said, anyone is at liberty to publish a website which collates golf results and uses a formula to rank players, and the result wouldn't be worthy of a WP article. We could perhaps propose a Temporary Keep, and give Wgiwiki time to get his/her project recognised by a media source, and then we'd have to reconsider. Currently however, the article cannot be shown to be supporting anything more than a personal pet project. And however well researched, well thought-through, or professionally presented that project is - and I have no argument with the statistical quality of the ranking system - WP is not a place for non-notable pet projects. EJBH (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Response: Your cynical comments are not appreciated, as we may not be the only ones reading this. Please clarify what is meant by "pet project", so that others may have a better understanding of your argument. WP is not a place for users who are willing to make comments without doing proper research. (Publisher: World Golf Index) Wgiwiki
 * It means that, from all available evidence, the "World Golf Index" looks like the statistical work of one, or possibly a group of several, golf enthusiasts; work whose primary function was personal satisfaction at the results of the work. If it were a widely recognised system throughout the golf world, it would no longer be a pet project, as it would be serving a further purpose in the public sphere. But it is not.

As has been explained repeatedly, WP:N requires that there be independent reliable media sources, for any article subject to be deemed notable. This article does not have them. The WP:N guidelines are not ideas which can be flouted whenever one wishes, as you seem to believe. They are called "guidelines" so that there is flexibility, and articles which are borderline notable can be given some leeway. Unfortunately this article fails on every measure, and so is presently not even close to borderline. That is the only interpretation of the guidelines given on this page - yourself and the other proponent of the article have been vocal in your defence of it, but you have yet to explain your views with actual reference to what the guidelines require. And also, I remind you that WP discussion pages are different to WP encyclopedia pages. On the encyclopedia pages research is proper research is required, but it isn't necessary on the discussion pages, although it may help to bolster an argument. EJBH (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The only consideration is the present situation. There can be no allowance for possible future sources. When, and only when, there are such sources could the article be recreated. Until that time, this utterly fails WP:N and should be deleted. <sub style="color:#007700;">wjemather <sup style="color:#ff8040;">bigissue 08:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Response: The "notability guidelines" are not rules or laws for you to enforce, they are "guidelines", and your interpretation of how they should be applied, is your opinion. Respectfully, there are other conflicting opinions posted here, and accordingly, this article should be kept.(Publisher: World Golf Index) Wgiwiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.90.100 (talk) 09:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note. Your one and only supporting voice has been indefinitely blocked for serial sock-puppetry and disruptive editing. See user's talk page. <sub style="color:#007700;">wjemather <sup style="color:#ff8040;">bigissue 18:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Response: Assuming that "your" is directed at me, you "blocking" someone is not retroactive, and therefore the comments and opinion still stand here because the user was not blocked when they were made. I question your tone, and some of the comments made here by you and the other user. While you purport to instruct others to be respectful, you behave like this a competition and that you are winning. Someone started Wikipedia with a vision and it has become a good thing for the internet and other people, because it provides facts and knowledge. That's the point, and that's who wins. Not you, not me, or the other person. And I appreciate the fact that you contribute here (WP) and obviously more than I do, and I appreciate the on going need to validate content here by a "consensus" of criteria, because of potential abusers, and which is the point of these "Articles". What I have done here is posted a few lines of fact in an encyclopedia in case someone else might want to know that, and I did so with honorable intention, and I stand by that. But what is not helpful is making demeaning comments about the topic when the focus should be on the consensus of criteria. And I suppose the demeaning tone may be mostly without intent, but in this case it just stings a bit because the topic also happens to be my property. So now something I propose for you to consider here: as "guidelines" are meant to be interpreted by a consensus, does leaving this "topic" (article) harm Wikipedia (it has been here for a long time), or would it have value, or more weight as a contribution? Lastly, it actually is funny that the user got blocked. (Publisher: World Golf Index) Wgiwiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.90.100 (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, may I suggest you calm down and stop taking things so personally. You will just have to accept whatever others think of your site, good or bad. Secondly I am not an admin, so do not have the ability to block anyone. I was merely pointing out that that individual may not be a particularly strong ally, with a demonstrable history of lack of understanding and disregard of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thirdly, I have made no demeaning comments about your site. My opinion on the substance and value of your rankings are irrelevant here, which is why I have not stated it, but if you want it I'll be happy to leave a comment on your talk page. Finally, if you say that you did not write the article for the sole purpose of publicising your site, then I accept that. However, I am afraid that by any measure, it fails the notability guidelines, which is why I nominated it for deletion. For more specific guidelines, please see WP:CORP and especially WP:WEB.<sub style="color:#007700;">wjemather <sup style="color:#ff8040;">bigissue 11:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Response: You may suggest whatever you like, but that doesn't mean I should do anything, or accept anything. It seems beyond your scope to grasp my position and perspective. This is my property and because this forum is publicly accessible, even the comment "non-notable" may be construed as defamatory and libelous. This is my biggest concern with this process, and which seems to be a contingent of Wikipedia. In other words, if I would have known that at the time when initially posting information about my property on Wikipedia, that it would provide a public forum for people to post egotistical and immature comments about my property, well then I would have not posted it. Accordingly, I am permanently ending this discussion. Please refer to my final comment below. (Publisher: World Golf Index) Wgiwiki


 * Delete - I can find no reliable sources to indicate that this index is notable. All I can find are press releases.  The golfing world has apparently taken no notice of this whatsoever.  As such it fails notability guidelines as no reliable sources have covered the subject. -- Whpq (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Notice: "Without Prejudice" (This is NOT a threat of legal action) This message is for Wikipedia administration and the history of this article. I am the trademark and copyright owner of the World Golf Index, and effective immediately, in the interest of protecting my property, I "do not" want my property associated with Wikipedia, its discussions and forums, in any method or manner, any longer. There have been too many negative and "potentially libelous" comments made about my property, and until information about my property can exist on Wikipedia peacefully, and without "risk of damage", I want all pertinent information permanently removed, and not accessible to the public. I trust that the administration of this website will post a proper deletion page and remove all that I do not have access to. Contact can be made at our website: www.worldgolfindex.com (Publisher: World Golf Index) Wgiwiki


 * I fully expect this discussion will remain accessible when closed even if the result of the discussion is to delete the article. Wikipedia is not here to view everything in a positive light but to present a balanced (WP:NPOV) insight into each subject it covers, and you should have been aware of that when you created the article. While you claim not to be making any threats of legal action, you also make thinly veiled accusations of libel. That is not acceptable. As previously stated, you must accept other peoples opinion, whether they agree with you or not. <sub style="color:#007700;">wjemather <sup style="color:#ff8040;">bigissue  09:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Both per WP:N and because the creator of the article has asked for it Jamesofur (talk) 07:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I guess that settles things then. Sorry to hear you feel that way Wgiwiki, it was certainly never my intention to belittle your work, nor anyone else's I'm sure. I hope you didn't take any of my comments as attacks on your website itself; believing that it is not currently suitable for Wikipedia does not mean I don't think highly of it. EJBH (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per the lack of reliable sources. I have been unable to verify any of the information in the article with a secondary source. Cunard (talk) 05:45, 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.