Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Combe Parkrun

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. There is no consensus on a merge target, or how the merger should proceed; feel free to discuss further on talk. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 09:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black Combe Parkrun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Prisoners go for a run on Saturdays. Coverage such as [1] is promotional for Parkrun and is not sufficient for GNG to be met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is notable as demonstrated by the references to the BBC, ITV and The Guardian. It is unique as the first run of its kind. Refs; [2], [3] Szzuk (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable park run, covered in local media. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The ITV and Guardian references are national media. › Mortee _talk 09:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A search for news items on "Black Combe Parkrun" returned five sources, and three were from November 2017. This was a feel-good news item which is not notable per WP:NOTNEWS. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I like reading through individual parkrun pages and it appears this one is notable not just because of the sources but also because of the unusual nature of the event. Middledistance99 (talk) 09:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Mentioned on The Guardian and BBC News channels so there is independent sourcing and therefore passes notability guidelines. Redditaddict69 08:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe the notability case is greatly helped by the detailed, descriptive coverage featured in the source from The Guardian. Middledistance99 (talk) 09:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The suggestion that the article or coverage is promotional is nonsense because this run is restricted to inmates. The topic passes WP:GNG, as the coverage is significant, independent and reliable. Andrew D. (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's promoting the Parkrun organization, not the specific Parkrun. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's nonsense too. Parkrun doesn't have much of an organisation and the article says little about it. And it doesn't go begging for contributions as much as Wikipedia. It's efficient and effective and, in this case, got good, respectable coverage. Not seeing any problem in need of fixing. Andrew D. (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The BBC is the epitome of independent and reliable, Parkrun can't buy them. Szzuk (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Guardian in detail talks about this individual parkrun, not just as part of the broader network of events. Middledistance99 (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Merge This article does have RS, but the whole article could fit neatly within HM Prison Haverigg. This might be the one notable parkrun, but this does not mean that people should keep creating parkrun articles so that we can keep deleting them. Natureium (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you mean to vote to bold "keep"? The text of your !vote reads more like a "merge" › Mortee _talk 23:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean that although I think it would be better merged, I can't think of a policy-based reason that it shouldn't be kept. Natureium (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • We can do both - keep this article with a short paragraph on the other page. I hope that more articles will become notable as more newspapers write about them. The individual articles definetely warrant them. I think Wimbledon Common Parkrun should stay - it is very close to meeting GNG and these sort of pages are a great asset to wikipedia in my opinion. Middledistance99 (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Parkrun. Worth a mention there but that's about all - this article, like the other parkrun articles at AfD, is mostly padding. --Michig (talk) 07:51, 25 August 2018 (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.