Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parkrun

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. ✗plicit 12:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parkrun

[edit]

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

Parkrun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Excessively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles. Refbombed with primary sources to detail the minutia of running events, promoting awards and achievements. TNT it and allow the creation of a non advert. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: A quick glance at the article shows multiple instances of WP:SIGCOV from reliable and major news sources including BBC News, the Guardian and Reuters plus academic papers. The article could be improved. It leans too heavily on primary sources, I don't think there's any need for a list of Parkrun events and "stylised as" notes for branding are a personal pet peeve but it's not an AfD candidate to me as it clearly meets WP:GNG. Even nom says it needs to be "rewritten" so I'm unclear as to why it's here at AfD. Flip Format (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I was surprised to see this nomination, as this is a well-known organised pursuit in recent times, as well as being one whose restrictions during Covid attracted controversy (e.g. [1], [2]). The article text includes references to independent studies of Parkrun and its impact. While I agree that articles should be trimmed of minutiae, that is a matter for normal editing; the present article looks far from requiring WP:TNT. AllyD (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. A worldwide weekly participation event that has attracted WP:SIGCOV clearly satisfies WP:GNG. Agreed, there are too many primary sources (one would question whether many aspects actually need to be referenced at all!), but no less than 50 of the current 117 references are cited to reliable secondary sources, including the BBC, Reuters, running and sports sites, government sources, and medical journals. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Very obviously meets GNG. A quick glace at the sources in the article includes [3], [4], [5], [6]. Concerns about promotional tone can be resolved by anyone who wants to - but we're nowhere near TNT territory. WJ94 (talk) 09:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic is notable. Not all the content belongs in here though as the nominator has expressed there is some promotional elements in it. This can be fixed by consensus in the talk page. Ajf773 (talk) 10:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Nom should be aware that notability is established by reliable sources IN THE WORLD: there is no requirement for the sources to be already in the article, though in this case there are certainly plenty there too. The BEFORE search should be external, and a nominator should be convinced that good sources cannot be found. The case is rather the reverse here. This applies even if the article is short, unstructured, badly-written, contains irrelevant material, is unillustrated, and poorly formatted: which this article isn't. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It looks like Duffbeerforme tried to get this deleted under WP:CSD G11 on March 20 and again on April 6. I'm not sure what the user has against this article but they seem determined to get it deleted. Flip Format (talk) 11:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny how so many editors attack anyone who tries to get rid of advertising. Actually it was deleted by CSD. It was then userfied to allow editors to address the over the top promotional nature but of course no one did anything. They just restored it unchanged. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think there’s a problem nothing is stopping you from improving the article yourself. Garuda3 (talk) 07:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the dif showing what has been changed. I was wrong, there was ONE change towards fixing the problems, the removal of the Poland list. Otherwise purely superficial. Moving a few words around, more primary sourcing, technical fixes. The only other positive change was the Barkrun note but the cruft, the overly self serving reliance on parkrun sourcing, the how-to nature, etc remains untouched. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:18, 28 April 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Parkrun&oldid=1152966639"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy