Talk:Greater Hickory Kia Classic at Rock Barn
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Newmanoconnor in topic Merge discussion
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Merge discussion
editThis article has been a stub since it's creation ,it contains no WP:IRS, only self published/primary sources which raises questions about it passing WP:GNG. Even with proper sourcing the page as is is not sufficient to have it's own article,the information should be listed on the Champions Tour pageNewmanoconnor (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- The suggested merge makes no sense. Every Champions Tour event, current (25) and past (67), has its own page. Otherwise the Champions Tour article would be ridiculously long. As the Champions Tour is the preeminent senior golf tour, its events are presumed notable. These events receive wide coverage, secondary sources can be easily added. - Tewapack (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- I do have to admit, your point that every champions tour event has it's own article raises questions,I'm going to have to do some more investigating, but most of the articles I looked at don't meet WP:RS or WP:IRS and appear to fails WP:GNG. I'll need to look at the golf essays to see what criteria are laid out. At minimum these articles are poorly sourced,or not sourced. Do not seem to demonstrate WP:CONTINUINGCOVERAGE, but are WP:ROUTINE. This could be a huge project..wow.Newmanoconnor (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- You're way off base here. These events certainly meet WP:GNG, the winners of these events are specifically noted at WP:NGOLF. How could the winners be notable for winning the event if the event is not notable? Also look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Golf#To-Do list, #3. Any further discussion should be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf. Tewapack (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- The same way that football players are notable but games, even the afc championship is not notable.WP:NGOLF is about gofers, not events. This would be covered by WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT. Even if this event was notable it isn't sourced properly and hasn't been since you created it. It's just a bunch of stats, and a stub of a paragraph that is hardly prose. However, I think a merge to. "Regular Events" page is more appropriate than my original proposal. gosh, it has me wondering if all of golf has been allowed to become a walled garden...I think I have a lot of stuff to look at. I'm not sure I have the time to help correct this right now, I'd also like to mention it to a few uninvolved admins and editors to get outside opinions.I thin if you want to remove the merge tag, I have no issue with that now, considering the amount of work any one change will start. Actially I'll remove it.Newmanoconnor (talk) 01:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- You're way off base here. These events certainly meet WP:GNG, the winners of these events are specifically noted at WP:NGOLF. How could the winners be notable for winning the event if the event is not notable? Also look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Golf#To-Do list, #3. Any further discussion should be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf. Tewapack (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- I do have to admit, your point that every champions tour event has it's own article raises questions,I'm going to have to do some more investigating, but most of the articles I looked at don't meet WP:RS or WP:IRS and appear to fails WP:GNG. I'll need to look at the golf essays to see what criteria are laid out. At minimum these articles are poorly sourced,or not sourced. Do not seem to demonstrate WP:CONTINUINGCOVERAGE, but are WP:ROUTINE. This could be a huge project..wow.Newmanoconnor (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)