Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golf in Thailand

:{{la|Golf in Thailand}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Golf_in_Thailand Stats])

:({{Find sources|Golf in Thailand}})

{{strikethroughdiv|1=Even one reason would be enough. But, in fact, there are two possible reasons to delete this article: WP:RS and WP:NOTFORPROMOTION.

Let me first quote from what User:Stalwart111 wrote about a sister article: "Sourced almost entirely to promotional websites ... this essay doesn't seem to have a lot of encyclopaedic value. ... A line or two in Tourism in Thailand should cover it but this is a ... small portion of the country's wider (and very notable) tourism industry."

And let me add: Of this article's meagre six sources, I am unconvinced that even one is reliable.

Note: Wikivoyage doesn't want this either. After seeing the equivalent page (see voy:Golf in Thailand), the community eventually decided to condense the page into a few paragraphs and to merge it into another article.

[Edit: the article was created by the paid editor User:Borndistinction, an official representative[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Borndistinction] of the Tourism Authority of Thailand. Based on advice I received on IRC last night, I think from User:I dream of horses, I have now presented Borndistinction with {{tl|uw-coi}} and {{tl|uw-advert1}} templates.]

[Edit: Nomination withdrawn. The 08:14 comment by Lugnuts convinced me that it wouldn't be so hard to clean the article up. I have now done so. It was Stalwart's insightful 07:58 comment which convinced me to withdraw my nomination.]

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)}}

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. TheChampionMan1234 02:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. TheChampionMan1234 02:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tourism-related deletion discussions. TheChampionMan1234 02:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, cleanup. Use only independent references. Valid subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Keep requires cleanup but not a valid Afd candidate. Iniciativass (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep No real valid deletion rationale presented. So the article has a little spam and needs cleanup. That's not the job for AfD. Clearly a notable topic and part of a bigger series of golf in Asia. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I can certainly understand the nominator's motivation here (especially given he quoted me) and while Lugnuts quite rightly points out that this is part of a larger series on Golf in Asia, it's also part of a series of hyper-promotional articles about individual aspects of Thai tourism which have since been deleted. I imagine this was just next on that list. I suppose the difference here is that while it's a part of the tourism industry (in much the same way as the now Spa in Thailand was), golf is also an international sport with international events and its a significant sport in parts of Asia, including Thailand. The article focuses on the economic impacts, especially relating to tourism, and that should be rectified. But the subject itself is probably notable when you consider the sport's popularity, land use, competitions, competitors and then economic impact (including tourism). Stalwart111 07:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

::IMO, everything from the heading "Golfing destinations" down could and should be removed from the article. The rest of it is sound, albeit lacking on sources. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

:::Yeah, sounds about right. It's as much about adding information and sources as it is about deleting the rubbish. Stalwart111 10:20, 4 April 2014 (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.