Talk:Mike Bennett and Andy Plummer

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Golf Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Golf, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Golf-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GolfWikipedia:WikiProject GolfTemplate:WikiProject GolfGolf
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Mike or Michael

Mike should redirect to Micheal or the other way? --Nuares (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the references use "Mike", so I used it too. Steamroller Assault (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

You MUST give references from reliable independent sources, especially when dealing with the biography of a living person. If these references aren't given the article is liable to be deleted. Please do not take the {{unreferenced}} tag off until these references are in place. For establishing notability, blogs, forums and other user editable material are not suitable, nor are sites associated with the subject of the article. Peridon (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this message was written before the proper section was finished. Now we have Chris Lewis' book and the Golf Digest Magazine, which is a very authoritative source (if you play golf you understand what I mean). As for Bennett and Plummer's book, it's the main valid reference when it comes to what they prescribe and say. There's a site associated with the subject of the article in the External Link's section, but it's not part of the References' section. --Nuares (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think one of the issues is that aside from Lewis' book, all of the references here have been written by the subject, when what we're looking for is references about the subject. There seems to be quite a few mentions of Bennett in Lewis' book, but additional secondary sources establishing notability would work wonders here.

Above comment is by SteanrollerAssault I was wondering about that too. I don't know who Lewis is and what his connection to the subject is (if there is one - hopefully there isn't). I agree that a bit more outside coverage wouldn't go amiss. Peridon (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally know Mr. Lewis either. BTW, have any of you heard about the Golf Digest? It's properly referenced and you seem to ignore that fact. It covered Bennett & Plummer's points of view more than once --Nuares (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not ignoring that at all. The Golf Digest articles you've referenced are written by Bennett and Plummer. We're looking for references about Bennett and Plummer, written by a third party. Steamroller Assault (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found and added additional secondary sources establishing notability, which I hope will work wonders here: a Charlie Rose's interview. The June-2007 and September-2007 issues of the Golf Digest don't include exclusively Bennett and Plummer's texts. The latter quotes Butch Harmon, Hank Haney, Jim Mc Lean, as critics, as properly referenced by current review.--Nuares (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's coming along nicely. But the golf digest articles (which I've read), regardless of who they extensively quote, are still written by the subjects of this page, which makes them primary sources. Also, the very best thing that you could do with the Charlie Rose interview is to find some information from the interview, and include (and reference) it within the text. As a stand-alone external link, it may not adhere to the external link guidelines. I know this may seem frustrating and somewhat byzantine, but you'll get the hang of it. Steamroller Assault (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're an editor too, so feel free to find information in the Charlie Rose interview, particularly within the introduction, where Charlie Rose himself informs the public who his guests are. Be sure of checking if any of the information I wrote in the article is false or irrelevant compared to Charlie Rose's own words. On the other hand, it's not frustrating or byzantine, but if the case is (and I'm not sure) that you are not familiar with golf at all I think you should acknowledge it. Any reader that browses an article like this will be quite aware of, for example, who Steve Elkington is, how relevant the Golf Digest is, who Butch Harmon and Hank Haney are, the same way you immediately recognized Charlie Rose. An article with erudite references demonstrating that Michael Jordan plays basket would look bizarre, the independent sources will be needed for statistics or less obvious details. As for the Gold Digest, the June 2007 issue includes a note by senior editor Peter Finch [1] about the duo and their golf swing model, and the main note was signed by Peter Morrice [2]. Morrice may be a friend of the duo, and he eventually co-authored their book, but I don't find any reasons to doubt about his honesty or any Wikipedia standard to discard him, especially when the Golf Digest makes much more room for conventional golf instruction, including quite hostile commentators like Jim Mac Lean, Nick Faldo or Peter Kostis.--Nuares (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with professional golf. I have no interest or association with the subjects of this article. What I do have is an interest in Wikipedia and I am familiar with Wikipedia guidelines. WP:WIS is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. Particularly, the fundamental cornerstones of notability and verifiability should be of interest to you. Never did I say that I doubt the factual claims made in the article. The issue at hand is for you (or another editor) to establish whether the subjects are notable enough to garner an encyclopedia article. I imagine that with a little bit of effort on your part, you can accomplish this. Also, please take a look at the reliable sources page (~~I imagine that Golf Digest may have an article about these guys that wasn't actually written by these guys--that would be a great source~~ the articles you just mentioned are exactly what we're looking for--being about the subjects and not by the subjects--you should absolutely include them in this article) and possibly the conflict of interest guidelines. Cheers, Steamroller Assault (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that now we can agree that according to notability and verifiability the current version of this article meets the W guidelines, at least to the degree of deserving its existence. It's certainly still a stub, but not bad for a first day of life. I convoke the community to expand it, since it's not my article, I just contributed by creating it and will continue contributing with it (I'm trying to get not licensed images or express permissions). Now that I mentioned Peter Kostis, I see that his article lacks any reference at all, although it hasn't been under risk since July 2005. If we give Pete 5 years, Mike and Andy certainly can get a couple of weeks :) The same happens with Butch Harmon: statements like "...is one of the world's best known golf instructors" or "...has been in the golf industry since 1965" are unsourced (though they're indeed true). --Nuares (talk) 02:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article was ever in danger of deletion. And the sources you mentioned are good, but need to be actually incorporated into the article rather than the talk page, because as it stands, the article still doesn't meet the notability requirements. I just wanted to make it clear that there was never a question as to whether or not Golf Digest was a reliable source. Of course it is. The issue was that you had only referenced articles written by Bennett and Plummer. As for Peter Kostis and Butch Harmon, feel free to fix them. Everyone here is fully aware that there are many articles that are not up to snuff. Steamroller Assault (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merged

I have combined the Michael Bennett (golf instructor) and Andy Plummer pages into this single article because these two people only have demonstrated notability as a duo. The source pages were nearly identical, and this combined one will prevent a content fork. Steamroller Assault (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done and that's true, they played together and coach strictly together.--Nuares (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mike Bennett and Andy Plummer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]