Talk:Braemar Golf Course

This page was proposed for deletion by Drmies (talk · contribs) on 28 January 2023.

Golf Low‑importance

	This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Minnesota Low‑importance

	Minnesota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota 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.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Braemar Golf Course. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion

This article has been proposed for deletion. There once were sources but it appears that some are no longer extant; see this source, which may not itself be reliable, but links to at least two publications that likely are, but which I cannot access. I am removing the PROD for the time being to allow anyone interested to save the article, but if no one comes forward it likely will be deleted. Kablammo (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I second the deletion. I also couldn’t find any secondary sources on the golf course, save those that mention that it is a golf course — which is to say that there has been no significant coverage of the course. If there were a “List of golf courses in Minnesota,” it might go there. King Crab Kid (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources mentioned in the link in the first paragraph above are Golf Digest, still being published, and Golf for Women, which ceased publishing in 2008. According to the piece linked above, "Golf Digest has rated the Braemar Golf Course among the top 75 public golf courses in the nation" and "Golf for Women Magazine has named it as one of its top '100 Women Friendly Courses'.” Kablammo (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the timeline] on the course's website, the Golf for Women ranking was in August 2000 and the Golf Digest ranking was March 1981. Kablammo (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very new to editing here. Just dug around and found that just the possible existence of secondary sources is enough for us to presume notability.

If both articles end up being just ranking lists — or if Braemar didn’t get a blurb in either — would it still make the cut? Are there hard rules for any of this? King Crab Kid (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are no hard rules. High rankings by reliable sources may well be sufficient. I am hoping the folks at WP:GOLF can help us out that, and also with obtaining archives of the two sources (a subscription may be needed for the Golf Digest; I hope they know how to get at Golf for Women content).

I see you have not been properly welcomed-- I will see to that. Kablammo (talk) 11:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that this article is written like an advertisement, as claimed in the template at the top of the article. But I am not aware of sources other than the two mentioned above (and I have not been able to obtain those). The evidence for notability is weak in any event, and therefore I do not oppose deletion. Drmies, would you like to do the honors? Kablammo (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kablammo, the "nationally recognized for meeting the needs" bit, with the reference that it has, is pretty promotional. But what are you asking? That I nominate this for deletion? You can do that yourself... Drmies (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]