Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brampton Heath golf course

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 of the debate was delete. – Sceptre ^(Talk) 14:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brampton Heath golf course

A completely random entry for a municipal golf course of no conceivable interest to anyone who doesn't play there. Category:Golf clubs and courses needs populating, but with articles about places like the great courses with red links in the Golf Digest article, not articles like this one. Delete Osomec 23:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn, advert? Bucketsofg 00:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I can't delete a golf course article based on a POV criteria like we should only have articles on "the great courses". If we are going to go down that road, why not just keep articles on the "great" universities, or the "great" highways, or the "great" towns, or the "great" football players, or the "great" stadiums? Why not make things simple and only have articles on films that have won academy awards, or scientists that have won nobel prizes, or hall of fame athletes? Everything else is just getting in the way of the random clicking, right? Well I hope we never go down that road. Life is made up of the great and the less great. This course must be important for the people who play on it and the local economy. Furthermore, this nom speaks like he owns the golf category and that he should be the one to decide what is worthwhile to be included. The editors who submitted the info did not see it as pointless, or "random clutter" and I'm satisfied that these editors are treating these courses in keeping with wikipedia standards. Therefore I see no grounds for removal. -- JJay 01:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Every vote on here is based on a point of view, including yours. Scranchuse 14:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • A municipal golf course "important to the local economy"? It probably has about the same turnover as the average fast food joint. ReeseM 01:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• and again....Strong Keep Jcuk 01:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete There is nothing notable about this golf course. JoshuaZ 03:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. We don't need 30,000 golf course articles. 300 would probably be closer to the mark. Ryder Cup venues, major championship venues, regular venues on the major tours should make the cut. Any others would just get in the way of the stuff worth reading. Scranchuse 14:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Way too unimportant. The article makes no mention of any tournaments that have been played there. Golfcam 18:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ReeseM 01:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Calsicol 17:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I had trouble finding the appropriate inclusion guidelines for a public golf course. Doesn't appear to be notable, but would prefer if the decision was less arbitrary. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:53, 26 March 2006 (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.