Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020-21 PGA Tour priority ranking

2020-21 PGA Tour priority ranking

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Violation of WP:NOT. Seems an attempt to track "current" exemptions and stats rather than present anything encyclopedic. Content merely duplicates that available on the PGA Tour website and in media guides, sourced exclusively from primary sources, with some original research. Details regarding changes to criteria, etc. are already covered in the season articles and these are the generally the only details that are covered in independent reliable sources.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

_wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should not be deleted. It tracks the current priority rankings of the PGA Tour which continually change after every tournament. It also provide the reader with a list of current PGA members and explains the way the priority rankings operate, and thus, it not merely duplicative. Further, at the end of the season it allows the reader to determine where the golfer will end up in next year's priority rankings, and whether they are likely to retain their PGA Tour membership. The article takes information from a variety of sites and puts them in a user friendly format, and should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McLeran4 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surely it's not our role to maintain such a highly detailed list. Could perhaps usefully be kept in someone user space, for reference purposes; but that's a separate issue. Nigej (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created the page for this last season. Been off wiki for a bit for medical reasons, will update on my reasoning soon Jopal22 (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: My motivation for this was page was to have something similar to 2019 PGA Championship#Field for the PGA Tour. When I first starting looking at golf articles these meant I understood a lot better the qualification for the majors (although I like that these are now on a separate page). Arguably PGA Tour status is more important to a player than any single major. Essentially I think having these pages gives much more context to how the PGA Tour works. It was really useful to me and I hoped this page would be to others. Specifically things that it enables that I couldn't find anywhere else are:
  - Allows a complete list of players on the PGA Tour.
  - Gives context to the importance of each category and how the PGA Tour functions
  - Explicitly sets out who lost their PGA Tour cards and how (not needed this year due to COVID changes). This isn't really addressed anywhere else and without it is like having a European football league page that only cares about champions and not relegation.
  - Explicitly sets out who joined the tour.
- Comment: In terms of being encyclopaedic and based on primary sources. I would argues items such are getting a PGA Tour exemption when winning a tournament or finishing in the top 125 FedEx, gaining temporary membership, losing your PGA Tour card etc are widely discussed in the golf media. Wikipedia is not a newspaper though so we should be representing this in a more encyclopedic and structured way as has been done here. Wikipedia is not against using primary sources when the source is objective and requires no ambiguity. This is similar to the justification for field listing and pages such as 2019 Korn Ferry Tour Finals graduates.
- Comment: Thirdly I would say the fact that other wikipedia users are keeping records of this, and there has been positive feedback and engagement from others apart from myself (I didn't create this page this year) -- there was one response on a golf talk page saying they recognised my name as I created this page in 2019-20 and it was the best page on wikipedia as it helped them understand the tour. Annoyingly I can't find this now! As for the point made by User:Phinumu, it wasn't actually my intention originally to do all the reordering but other people started doing it. I think now the PGA Tour media guide is digital it is more transparent - but happy to not have reordering and keep everything alphabetical. So from the above I don't think this should be deleted or falls foul of wiki rules. Even if there is a marginal argument it does I would argue WP:IAR as this has been very useful to some people to understand the tour, and there is no argument that it is not factual true, well set out and well maintained. Also I would mention although the PGA Tour does set out the categories, I notice this has not been updated for changes in the last few years, does not really give the same context for understanding as these pages do, and is subject to WP:RECENT Jopal22 (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Also User:Wjemather, could you point to the part of WP:NOT you think this fall foul of as I couldn't identify it. Thanks. Jopal22 (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm somewhat ambivalent here. In theory I'm in favor of having such a page. But in practice, it's almost impossible to keep adequately sourced. I maintain a similar list at User:Phinumu/PGA Tour exemptions, but there are often assumptions I have to make – for instance, while Rob Bolton keeps an updated list of the graduate reshuffle order, I have to figure out the order for the conditional guys and the past champions myself based on their FedEx Cup ranks. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 20:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To expand on my nomination rationale and answer the query above... I suggest that these articles contravene NOT on at least three counts: WP:NOTMIRROR, WP:NOTDIR, WP:RAWDATA, as they are simple listings of primary source data. There is also, as mentioned, WP:OR issues with some content (e.g. updates) being unsourced and assumptive, based on personal knowledge. Third party sources do not cover the priority ranking to anything close to such a granular level – therefore, nor should we. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [communicate] || 16:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are two things I would like to say at the outset:

- I am the one who told Jopal22 that this is the best page that has been published since I've been a user on Wikipedia. It is incredibly detailed and is so obviously valuable! Exemption status is so important and yet it is so hard to find anywhere on the internet. As far I know the PGA Tour doesn't even have it accessible anywhere. This is a huge addition to WikiProject Golf and I am somewhat in shock that this year's page is up for deletion.

- The page may not live up to some people's pedantic prescriptions for an encyclopedia entry but it, again, seems so obviously valuable. Even if it does not perfectly adhere to some rules what about WP:IAR? This immediately crossed my mind when I came across this deletion page. Jopal22 mentioned this too.

Could I hear more in layman's terms (I'm still sort of new to Wikipedia) as to why exactly this does not fulfill the criteria for an encyclopedia? Is it mainly because it is a fluid, evolving thing and will be hard to cite the changes?

I would like to hear back. I will respond more comprehensively in the future.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

You've described and confirmed exactly why it fails criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia as unverifiable original research. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is extremely valuable to understanding the PGA Tour, it is well maintained by multiple users, and factually accurate. There is no reason it should be deleted. Thank you Jopal22 for creating such a valuable resource. McLeran4 (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will we be hearing from an administrator soon? This has been up for deletion for 10 days now.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]