This page is within the scope of WikiProject Golf, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Golf-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GolfWikipedia:WikiProject GolfTemplate:WikiProject GolfGolf articles
Welcome to the Wikiproject Golf talk page. This is the place for questions, answers, and telling the rest of the group some of your accomplishments. New members should put their name down in the appropriate spot on the main page. Comment away!
I am struggling a little bit with this draft for LPGA player Gurleen Kaur. She made the cut at the U.S. Open (although she finished 66th) which would qualify under WP:NGOLF, but I cannot find sources that I feel would constitute significant coverage. There are some references from her college and some local television coverage, but mainly just mentions and nothing in-depth. What would be the project's take on notability with this one as I don't want to move to mainspace if it is likely to get deleted? CNMall41 (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It there isn't sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, then we shouldn't have an article. As a minimum, per WP:SPORTCRIT, anything in draft needs to have one GNG qualifying source before being moved to mainspace. Also, anything relating to non-elite level sport (including school/college) would need to be particularly outstanding to justify an article on that basis alone. wjematherplease leave a message...12:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. What I am saying is she does qualify under WP:NGOLF (presumably notable) based on her making the cut in the U.S. Open. I am wondering if the references used would be considered significant coverage from those who regularly work in the project. Don't want to waste anyone's time with a deletion discussion, cleanup, etc. Hope that clarifies. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no longer a presumption of notability under NSPORT guidelines, only an indication the significant coverage is likely to exist. Also, NGOLF needs tightening as it's become clear that significant coverage does not actually exist for many players who make the cut in majors or play a small number of full season(s) on tour without making an impression. Personally, I'd say the references in the article are not enough – the two most detailed are not independent of the subject – so more is needed. wjematherplease leave a message...11:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We discussed the first page years ago but I never feel like we came to a strong conclusion about whether to keep it or not. If we could have a robust discussion on the deletion page that would be nice. I believe it is very similar (though not identical to) the List of Canadian winners on the PGA and LPGA Tours that I successfully proposed for deletion a couple years ago. (See the full discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Canadian winners on the PGA and LPGA Tours.) To me, the Swedish page is similarly awash in made-up cross-categorizations with no precedent in the media.
With Ross' page, in the References section they have some sources that reference the courses he designed. But I'm not sure if the sources are reliable. And in general, this just seems like another standalone list - an idea we're trying to get away from.
Have reverted the Donald Ross notice, his undeniable contributions to golf course design and adequate sourcing define the page. And who is "we" in "an idea we're trying to get away from" concerning standalone lists? They are fine, encyclopedic, and educational. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the List of Swedish professional golfers page this still strikes me as the same idea as the Canadian list that was successfully deleted. Also, the central sources are in the Swedish language and this is an English-language site. Shouldn't all references be in English for en.wikpedia.org?
