Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dartmoor Discovery


 * 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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Withdrawn with no non-!Keep votes extant. (Disclosure: I commented on procedure in this AfD, but did not !vote, and due to the nature of the result I do not believe that this is a violation of WP:INVOLVED. If another feels otherwise please feel free to revert and re-close.) The Bushranger One ping only 07:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Dartmoor Discovery

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced with one external link to race website. No indication of significance. Upjav (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MTTrainDiscuss 05:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MTTrainDiscuss 05:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment My main criticism of the AFD is that the proposer seems to have done no work into finding anything out about the race. Worth noting WP:NTRACK. Refers to a road race that "has been held over a unique course or distance consistently over a period of 25 years." The Dartmoor Discovery is only 20 years old so would not strictly satisfy the criteria. Also worth noting that many of the races in List of ultramarathons probably do not meet the WP:TRACK criteria either, so it seems an arbitrary AFD rather than one as part of a well thought-out and discussed strategy. Nigej (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Why does a strategy determine whether this meets notability requirements? I had proposed this deletion as well and looked at other ultramarathons, came across this, and proposed this. If I had more time, I would/could go through and nominate others, as you noted. In terms of "doing no research", if you look online for it, it's mostly covered on its own site, rare and occasional news sources, and local race tracking websites. This doesn't meet WP:GNG and doesn't meet WP:NTRACK. Upjav (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment It's just that I've got an aversion to those who go around putting hatnotes in everywhere without doing any work themselves. You're happy to quote WP:NTRACK now that someone else has found it. How do you know it doesn't meet WP:GNG, surely that what we're here to find out. Nigej (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Furthermore 'no indication of significance' is an argument to avoid. That's something you fix by editing the article, not deleting it. Being only covered by "rare and occasional news sources" is also an argument that should be avoided: 'rare' is irrelevant as long as there is 'enough', and 'occasional' is an implied statment that notability is temporary. Now, the base assertion - that this race is not notable per WP:GNG - may or may not be correct, but it needs to be argued, either way, correctly, as doing otherwise poisons the well for discussion of the actual issues. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep A simple WP:BEFORE would have avoided this AfD, it is reported on eery single year, for all of its twenty year history, etc and is close (5 years off) being inherently notable under WP:NTRACK. AfD is not cleanup so the lack of "indication of significance" is not an issue. I will also note that some journalist from forbes runs it annually and has included it in some articles,  .  Dysklyver  14:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Fine to back down on this. Clearly need to get back and refresh myself on policy and how to adequately determine AfD eligibility and propose deletion when appropriate. Cheers, Upjav (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * keep - this AFD seems to be a clean up request. This article subject covers WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.