Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PowerPlay Golf

PowerPlay Golf

I don't know much about golf, but I do know that one media mention does not satisfy notability requirements. All of user's contributions seem to be in the interest of promoting this. Perhaps worth noting is the site's banner now includes "Recognized by Wikipedia! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to satisfy notability criteria. Twenty Years 03:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was the admin that removed the speedy tag from this (as well as removing adverty elements). I don't think that their reference to Wikipedia should influence us. I did a quick and dirty Google search and found ([1]) and ([2]) both of which seemed pretty third party, especially the latter, written by a well-respected BBC Golf correspondent. Once I'd seen them, I stopped looking. Enhance the article and add balance, perhaps they won't be so happy once we include criticism. Interestingly, the Iain Carter piece includes the following: "Now if ever you want to get together a bunch of cynical spoilsports then invite a hoard of journalists. If a dampener can be found we'll be the first to locate it. Yet after the initiation of 'Power Play' golf there wasn't a hint of criticism." --Dweller (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the article has been improved since I first put the speedy deletion tag, the notability of this game is far from being established yet, and, in fact, the originator of this article added the following to the Peter McEvoy article:

In February 2008, he devised and launched PowerPlay Golf a shortened version of golf in a bid to create golf's version of Twenty20 cricket

That means there is no PowerPlay Golf activity yet, and therefore the game is not yet notable. Far from it. Let's wait for the game to catch on before having a Wikipedia article on it. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 23:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be popular, it needs to be notable, ie reported on by multiple non trivial RS. I found such references in seconds. --Dweller (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are enough reliable third party sources to warrant retention of the article. Congratulations to Dweller for his clean up work. Capitalistroadster (talk) 07:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ditto on third party sources. Sting_au Talk 13:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. As per Capitalistroadster.Sunderland06 (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]