Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/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. ✗plicit 12:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮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]

• Well if neither CSD nor AfD worked, they're speedily running out of options for attacking it that won't get them blocked from editing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:13, 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]

• Yes I know there is a problem so I'm trying to improve the situation by getting this advert deleted so an actual encyclopedia article can replace it. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The article doesn’t have to be deleted for it to be rewritten. Instead of letting many hours of volunteer effort go to waste, why not try improving the existing article? Garuda3 (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please, show us your draft replacement article? You do have one? Right? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Excuse me, what now? There have been over 30 non-minor edits to the page since restoration. We're volunteers, and there is no deadline. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:53, 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]

• Purely superficial - apart from this change, and that removal, and the new expansion, and the use of additional non-primary sources, and... you really don't like it, do you? 🤣 Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• That's right little kid, I don't like it. It's not the only thing I don't like. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Plenty of reliable sources, including media coverage and academic papers. Anywikiuser (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep needs tidying up and more third party refs, but there’s no shortage of those. Mccapra (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no shortage of sources on parkrun. Garuda3 (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I didn't even have to finish the reflist before I could tell this was notable. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, clearly notable topic with encyclopedic content in the article. If some content is not encyclopedic, then that and only that should be removed. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:snow. Not sure why we're having this discussion. ResonantDis_tortion 15:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes please keep. It is very informative 2605:A601:A38F:A500:DD50:8DCB:DB99:D8C4 (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Came to the page wanting info and found it. Let's improve, not discard. --Travelite088 (talk) 03:11, 30 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.