Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gap wedge

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gap wedge

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A Google test shows this is one of the least notable golf club types we have an article on. Redundant to wedge. Marcus Qwertyus 00:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Least notable" does not equal non-notable. Lack of any rationale for deletion leads me to believe this is a merge proposal. In which case the nomination should be withdrawn and a merge discussion started at an appropriate venue. _wjemather ^bigissue 00:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Merger is not appropriate. Wedge is the general term, pitching wedge and sand wedge are specific clubs which (appropriately) have articles, as is the gap wedge, designed to fill the "gap" between the loft of these two clubs. AboutGolf.com has an article on gap wedges, a simple Google search will show you what they look like and where to buy them. Sourcing problems in this article, but a slam-dunk KEEP here... Carrite (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's another article on gap wedges from the site 4Wedges.com. Carrite (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - And another discussion of gap wedges from golflink.com, which defines them as having a loft of from 49 to 54 degrees. Carrite (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. —_wjemather ^bigissue 09:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Golf club. Golf is an extemely notable sport, and I would tend to think that that any club which has its own name and purpose could rate an article. And the article shows that there is something worthwhile to say about the entity. Herostratus (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wjemather — it's still a topic worthy of an encyclopedia article. Moreover, Carrite has found multiple reliable sources discussing it, if you don't believe that it's notable already. Nyttend (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.