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 SNOW Keep. Notable products are, like other topics, important on Wikipedia and consensus confirms that this is one of them. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bertha (golf club) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

• Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are various sources cited and others exist. According to this book, the Big Bertha driver was in 1997 the most used driver on each of the five top golf tours. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia - where you can create an article on almost any product no matter how little value it has in an encyclopaedia. And it does not matter how little you know about the project as a whole - just write an article and leave it there for editors to argue over. You can almost guarantee that it will stay there. It is real easy to get the articles on to Wikipedia and impossible to rid of them. That will help to promote your favourite product and improve the sales volumes for your company. The backlog of maintenance tasks can wait, and the list of requested articles can be ignored. Editors would rather fight each other in the AfDs, and sometimes expend huge amounts of emotional energy rather than build an encyclopaedia that is useful to readers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very rude and immature of you to say. The problem is people like you arguing over articles like this. The encyclopedia is useful by having topics on everything. You gain nothing by deleting content some might want to read. Anyone who doesn't like it, won't even know it exist, since they aren't likely to ever find there way there unless they just go looking for something to complain about. Dream Focus 15:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think it was rude or immature. I was just venting my spleen with a bit of satire. Even though WP is not paper there is no way that it can have an article on everything. We therefore have to draw a line in the cyber-sand somewhere and I think it has to be pretty close to the inclusion of articles on products. There is simply too many products, and too much danger of SPAM making the articles too hard to maintain. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Please consider basing nominations for deletion upon Wikipedia policies, listed here: WP:DEL#REASON, rather than upon opinion of articles about products. Also, please consider following the suggested procedures located at WP:BEFORE prior to nominating articles for deletion. It appears that you simply typed in the rationale for the nomination without actually checking for topic notability, which, if the case, is very poor form. This topic obviously surpasses WP:GNG, as has been thoroughly delineated in this AfD. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Alan, you are a really useful editor and I am glad that you help maintain the quality of this encyclopedia. However, your comments here, while interesting, are off-topic and belong at another venue. This is the place to discuss whether or not Big Bertha golf clubs are notable. Here is a quote from a a 2002 book: "A classic case is Callaway's Big Bertha golf club. Ely Callaway intentionally jacked up the price of this club when he first introduced it years ago, setting it far above the industry standard and far above what he needed to make a good profit. As a marketing man. he understood that at a lower price, the Big Bertha would have been just another golf club, and the well-heeled target market wouldn't have been able to see the value. But the $400 driver (initially: even more now) caught the attention of golfers, who then searched for value — and found it, as any golfer who has tried the club will attest. The Big Bertha changed the industry" Or this 2007 book: "Callaway Golf's Big Bertha golf club, for instance, wasn't the first oversized golf club when it came on the market, but it contained several improvements in materials and composition that could be patented. The club also had a unique design that eliminated most of the weight from the club shaft and, most important, was instantly identifiable." And then four more sentences on the golf club follow. The golf club was introduced to the market in 1991, 10 years before Wikipedia was thought of, and was a big success back then. As for articles being "impossible" to delete, that is simply not true on the face of it. We delete articles here in massive numbers every single day. I recommend deleting about 50% of the articles I review and about 90% of those end up being deleted. I've never played a round of golf and I have heard of the Big Bertha club. It has received significant coverage in reliable independent sources. That's how I heard of it. So, Alan, do you really think that the Big Bertha golf club isn't notable? If not, precisely why not? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The Big Bertha didn't need Wikipedia to be promoted or improve its sales volume. It was being described as "the most popular driver ever made" and manufactured by "the biggest [golf] equiment manufacturer in the world" in 2000 -- before Wikipedia was even created. [1] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Cullen328. One of the most famous golf clubs ever made. Just because something is a commercial product is not grounds for deletion, if there is substantial independent coverage, and such coverage certainly exists here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – A well-sourced article, which surpasses WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This doesn't just seem to be a golf club, or a label stuck to a range of golf clubs, but a deliberate shift in their design to one with a signifficantly larger volume. A long production history and 3rd party discussion suggests that that's an innovation that made some difference to its performance. It's notable for the innovation, not just the brand name. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As usual, Cullen is on target. I won't spend any time digging around to see if the glossy golf mags have anything online, but rest assured that Callaway is one of the biggest club makers and the Big Bertha series are one of their flagship products. There is undoubtedly substantial and independently published coverage out there dealing with the subject of this article. Carrite (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per Cullen's detailed response. SL93 (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep per Cullen. CallawayRox (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I know very little about golf, but I would be evidencing absolute ignorance if I were to nominate this notable product for deletion. Its one thing to claim that the article was in bad shape when nominated and notability was not evident (though googling would show it was), its another to actually claim its non-notable. That would go down on my permanent record forever and I would have to hide my face around town for a while.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This article was originally proposed for deletion (prodded) by the nominator of this AfD. I removed the tag and added references. Then the article was sent to AfD. Perhaps editors should consider checking in at Category:All articles proposed for deletion every now and then, as it appears that notable topics are unfortunately routinely being nominated for deletion and listed there. After seven days, the article may be deleted. If I hadn't removed the tag, the article may have already been gone by now, based upon one user's opinion, rather than the consensus existent here. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Bad nomination. At the time of the article's nomination[2], it already had references in it, providing this was a notable topic. Click on the first link in the reference section, and you could read an article in the LA Times [3] covering it in detail. Dream Focus 15:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep —SW— ^prattle 01:01, 6 December 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.