Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Golf
![]() | Points of interest related to Golf on Wikipedia: Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment |
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Golf. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Golf|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Golf. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Sports.

watch |
Golf
Articles for deletion
- 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 was keep. ✗plicit 06:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- List of golf video games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not seem to meet WP:NLIST. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 05:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Golf. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 05:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep If this list isn't notable, then Lists of sports video games and everything in it are not notable either and should likely have all been bundled together. However, I believe it does pass NLIST as sports video games are a notable subject. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep WP:LISTN can be met, even if it's not currently shown in the article. Did you do WP:BEFORE? Here are a few reliable sources covering the group: [1], [2], [3] (Well, sports, to zxcvbnm's point, but related), [4] (SI comparing different golf video games), [5] (A situational, but here it is), [6] (More group coverage), [7], [8], [9] ... and so on. -- ferret (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Valid navigational list. Category:Golf video games exist, and list are more useful than categories, more information able to be shown. We need to make the list guideline more obvious since this keeps coming up for years now. Dream Focus 17:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, but damn does it ever need some serious cleanup. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: The sources provided above show that the topic of this list is widely-covered by reliable sources as a group or set in both the golf world and the video game world, satisfying WP:NLIST criteria. Left guide (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Ferret's sources. The list is not very well sourced at the moment, but the article as a whole meets the WP:NLIST criteria. Conyo14 (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Most of the article includes notable games. There could be some chances for doing a small cleanup. Dympies (talk) 02:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The article is properly sourced, and it does meet WP:NLIST. I see no reason for deletion. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- This vote is a little suspect, @MKsLifeInANutshell. Pretty much ever !Keep agrees the article is not properly sourced. Did you actually look? We're headed to a keep regardless but you need to be doing a proper evaluation before !voting. -- ferret (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - the whole premise of this nomination puzzles me. The claim is that it fails NLIST. NLIST would generally be satisfied when reliable sources discuss a similar grouping of subjects. Do you mean to tell me that your belief is that publications have never written any articles about the incredibly common subject of golf video games. I get the concern when editors write these bizarre lists like "Platform games featuring animals and time travel", but why would one think a common sports video games wouldn't have coverage out there? Sergecross73 msg me 19:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - per ferret Grahaml35 (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2024 (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.
- 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 was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- List of career achievements by Jack Nicklaus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NOTSTATS applies here. Much of the content here is quite arbitrary as is. Let'srun (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Golf, Lists, and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, WP:NEXIST, and WP:ARTN - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Also the Jack Nicklaus article is some 11,000 words [10], so per WP:TOOBIG "Probably should be divided or trimmed". Whether this particular WP:SPLIT is the best is open to question but personally I don't see a compelling reason to delete it. Nigej (talk) 08:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. There is certainly some cruft to be trimmed but the majority of the content seems valid and AFD is not cleanup. The alternative to keeping is not deletion, but merging the valid content into the parent, which in this case is an article that doesn't need to get any bigger, so it's better to keep this split and fix it. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Perfectly valid WP:SPINOUT article. This is how it is done. Category:Career achievements of sportspeople Dream Focus 13:18, 17 March 2024 (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.
- 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 was keep. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sweet spot (sports) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced since 2009, mostly a dictionary definition DrowssapSMM 02:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Withdraw: article has been significantly improved. DrowssapSMM 16:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. DrowssapSMM 02:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep – this is a well-defined and widely-covered concept in both baseball and cricket, with extensive sourcing to prove it. Left guide (talk) 06:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, the references shared above, and the depth of the concept in general. I am surprised the article has zero references. It really needs to be filled out. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 06:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Verifiability is a non-negotiable policy, and 15 years is long enough. The Heymann criterion should be to add two reliable sources within the next seven days after this second relist. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - per WP:NOTDICT. Already covered at Glossary of baseball terms#S and could readily be added to similar articles for other sports. Nigej (talk) 10:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Let'srun (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Seems more in place in a dictionary. AA (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: It seems rather interesting and odd that none of the delete !voters above have addressed (or even mentioned) the sourcing provided in this discussion long before they arrived, so I don't see how they could carry much, if any, weight. They look like drive-by editors casting personal opinions who didn't bother to read this discussion, review the sources, or consider important matters like WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. Meanwhile, in addition to the sources previously presented, I also found these two books which offer extensive in-depth secondary analysis of the sweet spot concept, further strengthening the case to keep the article. Left guide (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Meets WP:GNG with the multiple sources of significant coverage (for multiple sports even) identified by user Left guide above. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP (but adding sources to the article can only mitigate false impressions).—Bagumba (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. What do those editors arguing Delete think about the sources brought up in this discussion? Could any of those advocating Keep add them to the article? If this subject is mentioned elsewhere, then why isn't anyone arguing for a Merge or Redirect as an ATD? This is a juggling act.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: The above sourcing covers just baseball and cricket. For tennis, there's this article from a university engineering department magazine which offers a rather large section dedicated to the sweet spot concept; at the very bottom it also cites as one of its references
H. Brody, ”The Physics of Tennis II: The ‘sweet spot’.” American Journal of Physics, vol. 49, pp. 816, 1981.
, which is a peer-reviewed scientific journal offering dedicated coverage of this concept. Then there's this book published by a university press; chaper 2 is titled The Sweet Spots of a Tennis Racket and spans 16 pages (23-38). Left guide (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC) - Keep. Sourcing is adequate. This is more than dictionary definition and I see lots of room for expansion. BusterD (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: We've been given lots of sources about the baseball sweet spot, the cricket sweet spot, the tennis sweet spot, etc. What we're lacking are sources about the sweet spot in sports generally. Are there good sources discussing the concept as it applies to all sports. So while the concept relates to many sports, I'm still not convinced that we need an article on it. As I noted above the concept can be covered for specific sports, either within an existing article or even as separate article if there's enough content to justify it. Nigej (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Could be a WP:BROADCONCEPT page:
—Bagumba (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Due to the difficulty of explaining this relationship (and the comparative ease of merely listing articles to which the title relates), editors often create disambiguation pages for such titles, even though there is an unambiguous meaning that can be discerned from the relationship between the listed topics.
- Could be a WP:BROADCONCEPT page:
- You raise some very good points to consider. I'd argue there's enough sourcing to justify separate articles on the sweet spots for baseball, cricket, and tennis if a split is a palpable resolution. However, there is also plenty of generalized interconnected coverage of this concept across all sports, tying them together; some examples:
- On page 719 of this book, it says:
If we compare baseball and tennis with cricket, baseball bats are made up of solid wood or hollow aluminum barrels and tennis rackets are made up of composites. All the batsmen know that there is a special spot on a cricket bat where the shots feel very smooth. It sometimes feels so good that there is almost no sensation at all that the bat hit the ball. It is the same with a tennis racquet or a baseball bat. These areas have been given various names such as sweet zone, sweet spot, etc. A sweet spot is a position that is identified by the batsmen at the best location of the bat with which the ball comes in contact and gives the maximum exit velocity.
- On page 719 of this book, it says:
- There's also page 202 of this book which demonstrates and explains a mathematical physics equation needed to find the sweet spot; included in its commentary is
This is the ideal point at which to hit a ball with a bat (sometimes called a 'sweet spot' in sporting applications — cricket, tennis, baseball, etc.)
- There's also page 202 of this book which demonstrates and explains a mathematical physics equation needed to find the sweet spot; included in its commentary is
- Then page 365 of this book is unfortunately sandwiched between two pages not visible to me on preview mode, but from that page alone it says
Considerable work has been done on the physical interpretation of the 'sweet spot' and its location on the cricket bat using the research on baseball bats as the basis. It is possible to establish such correlations as the mechanics of swinging the bat is similar for both games. The length and weight of the cricket bat and baseball bat are also similar…Based primarily on extensive research on tennis racquets and baseball bats, today it is widely accepted that there are other impact locations on the bat that are capable of producing the greatest post impact ball velocity.
That page alone also cites about ten other sources inline which can be referred to.
- Then page 365 of this book is unfortunately sandwiched between two pages not visible to me on preview mode, but from that page alone it says
- In this book, Chapter 4.5 titled "Angular impulse and the centre of percussion" begins with
Have you ever wondered why a cricket bat, a baseball bat or a tennis racquet has a sweet spot? This is the point on the bat where the ball seems to be hit most cleanly, without producing much vibration in the handle
followed by a demonstration and explanation of the mathematical physics equations required to calculate the position of the sweet spot.
- In this book, Chapter 4.5 titled "Angular impulse and the centre of percussion" begins with
- These sources show a great deal of analysis on the sweet spot concept in a manner that cohesively ties all the sports together. These are mere snippets (as in there is a lot more about sweet spots than just what is quoted) so as not to needlessly overwhelm this discussion, but please read and go the sources to see the full depth and breadth of coverage for yourself if you still have any doubts or questions. Left guide (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - the article has been improved dramatically since its nomination and Left guide's research clearly shows there is extensive sourcing on the concept which can be used to improve the article further. Hatman31 (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Good sourcing and I can see future improvements in place. Can't see this being merged to something. 🍪 CookieMonster 04:41, 21 March 2024 (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.