Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiddy2


 * 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 merge to Dane Rauschenberg. If you are unsure, still, of Rauschenberg's notability then the solution is to AFD that article. Neil  ☎  11:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Fiddy2

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article does not meet the notability criteria for a website. If notability is to be judged by the underlying task of running 52 marathons on consecutive weekends, at least three other people have done it before. If notability is to be judged on running a number of marathons in a year, other people have run more. Similarly, other people have run more consecutive weekends. Whenever the article is edited to remove NPOV problems, IP address only editors come back and re-add POV in a manner which suggests major WP:COI problems. Any objective reader must question whether this entire matter is about fund-raising or about self-generating publicity. The external references are not hard news coverage, but rather non-discriminating media reflecting the numerous press releases that are described in the article. If every runner posted a wikitable with his/her past races, Wikipedia would be overwhelmed with non-notable data. The posting of finishing place without stating the size of the total field is misleading and POV, and efforts to add the total field sizes to the table meet with repeated deletion by the WP:COI contributors. In short, this is an ego trip rather than a serious article and does not meet any standard of notability. Xcstar (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete At first glance the list of external references, including the Washington Post, seem to provide sufficient notability. But they're nearly all about other runners. There isn't enough notability to justify a page for the subject. Alberon (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect to Dane Rauschenberg. After the exceedingly bad faith demonstrated in the related AfD (including nearly ten sockpuppets involved in the AfD and efforts to butcher the article, we now have an AfD from an individual who has endeavored to remove any and all meaningful content from the original article in an apparent attempt to eviscerate it into meaninglessness. It was never clear to me why the two articles were separate, and now is the time to combine them and put an end to the continuing pattern of abuse that should have ended when the Dane Rauschenberg AfD ended as a no consensus despite the sockpuppetry. Alansohn (talk) 12:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect to Dane Rauschenberg. Fiddy2 is a one-man enterprise. Just as there isn't an article about Lindbergh's flight across the Atlantic and everything about it is covered in the article on Lindbergh, there shouldn't be a separate article about Rauschenberg's quest to run 52 marathons in 52 weeks - the material should be included in the Dane Rauschenberg article.  CruiserBob (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The question is whether there is anything notable here. During 2006, two people ran 50 marathons in 50 days Sam Thompson and Karnazes.  Chuck Engle ran 51 marathons that year because one was cancelled at the last minute, but his average time was about 30 minutes faster than Dane's.  A number of people have run marathons on consecutive weekends, including streaks of 73 and over 100.  A number of people have run more than 52 marathons in the same year.  There is nothing unique about the year 2006 or about the number 52, yet the claim to notability is that Rauschenberg is the only person to have run exactly 52 marathons in the year 2006.  Efforts to edit the articles to place this "achievement" in context are always reverted, and if the article remains there is no prospect of an end to WP:COI and WP:NPOV problems.  Rauschenberg is admittedly a genius at self-promotion as demonstrated by his use of Wikipedia, yourrunning.com, and allsportrunning.com, but Wikipedia should not be misused to legitimize this. Xcstar (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is only getting more disturbing. The issue of Dane Rauschenberg's notability has already been settled at that article's AfD. You -- and some ten other sockpuppets -- were actively trying to push that argument at that AfD and in editing that article, and that view was rejected. Wikipedia does not require someone to be "unique", merely notable. Even by your argument, Rauschenberg would be one of a small handful of individuals to have run 50+ marathons that year, which would still be a rather strong claim of notability. Clearly, notability has already been demonstrated for Rauschenberg. It is at best improper to try to fight that old AfD here, where Rauschenberg's notability is not even a relevant question. The only question before us is whether his list of accomplishments belongs in a separate article or should be combined with his article. It's time to end this obsession with Rauschenberg. Ten sockpuppets have already been blocked due to this one article. Please don't be number eleven. Alansohn (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue of notability for websites (and this article appears to be about the fiddy2.org website) is clear WP:WEB "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." It clearly fails. (criteria 2 and 3 are not applicable.)  The issue of notability for fiddy2 as a fundraising organization also fails.  As to whether either fiddy2 or Rauschenberg meet the notability test in general, they do not because primarily of WP:NOT and also because the sources mistakely relied upon by the Rauschenberg advocates are not "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."  Instead, they are uncritical recycling of the press releases generated by Rauschenberg.
 * My proposed solution is to add a subsection to the marathon article to cover multiple marathon achievements. At the most, fiddy2/Rauschenberg could gain a passing reference in such a subsection.  Separate articles on fiddy2 and on Rauschenberg are not warranted and never have met the notability test. Xcstar (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is only getting more desperate. As stated in the first sentence of this article, "Fiddy2 was Dane Rauschenberg's project to run one marathon every weekend in 2006". WP:WEB has no relevance, as it has nothing to do with the content of a website. WP:NOT is also a non-starter as there is nothing being advertised here. This is nothing more than a back door effort to subvert the failure to delete the Dane Rauschenberg article by deleting this one, and using excuses for deletion that are ever more unjustified. Rauschenberg is notable; a list of his efforts probably is not notable; they should be merged to their parent article. Alansohn (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My new proposal is that we delete fiddy2 and at most add a sentence to Marathon. The fiddy2 article is an obvious attempt to drive traffic to fiddy2.org where  fundraising and the sale of fiddy2 logo merchandise continues.  I have yet to see a "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" that supports a claim of notability.  Minor plugs prompted by Rauschenberg's press releases do not qualify. Xcstar (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "New proposal"?!?!?! Your proposal all along has been to delete this article. The problem is that the article you're discussing for deletions is the Dane Rauschenberg article, which is not up for discussion now, and whose deletion attempt failed, despite your actions and those of a whole myriad of sockpuppets. Your clairvoyance as to the motives behind the creation of the article are not credible, nor are your attempts at disrupting this article. The "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" that supports a claim of notability is all at Dane Rauschenberg, where this material belongs. It's time to end the obsession with Dane Rauschenberg and stop the sockpuppetry. You are rapidly approaching 90% of your edits being directly related exclusively to Dane Rauschenberg. Alansohn (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The deletion of the fiddy2 article remains my primary recommendation. I have concluded that due to WP:COI and WP:NPOV problems, it will never evolve into something worthwhile.  As a counter-proposal to the suggestion that the wikitable be merged into the Dane Rauschenberg article, I am proposing that at most one sentence be added to the new Marathon subarticle.  None of the participants in the AfD here were the parties to the past vandalism of either article, and I assume the good faith of all participants.  I don't understand the orgin of the "fiddy2" name or its significance, other than it was arbitarily chosen as the name for the fiddy2.org website and the 2006 project.  However, applying either the WP:WEB or WP:NOTE in general, all the references are "coverage with low levels of discrimination" and the fiddy2 article lacks long-term reference value or significance.


 * The wikitable does not contain valuable information, and merely duplicates the information on the fiddy2.org website. The data was included by Fiddy2, who is presumably a sockpupet of Dane Rauschenberg.  The new Marathon subarticle contains a reference to a man who has run 945 marathons in his lifetime, but it would be inappropriate to include a wikitable listing all 945 marathons in that article.  Similarly, Cal Ripken Jr. has an admirable streak of 2,632 consecutive major league baseball games, but it would be inappropriate to include a wikitable listing the details of each of those games. Greater reference value comes from a wikitable or list of notable multiple marathon achievements (e.g., the 25 runners who have completed the most marathons.) Xcstar (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In Rauschenberg's case, the 52 marathons are specifically relevant to his notability, and the table provided here not only belongs in that article, but clearly supports his claim of notability. While Cal Ripken and 945 marathon guy all ended up with a record, Rauschenberg set out to achieve this particular goal, one that is supported bu ample independent, reliable and verifiable sources that support his notability, appearing before, during and after his effort. Your goal of deleting this article and the associated article for Rauschenberg seem merely a part of an effort to be disruptive. Appeals to "WP:COI and WP:NPOV problems" are merely an excuse to justify the disruption. This acknowledged abusive sockpuppetry must end. Alansohn (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge It would really seem obvious to anyone previously uninvolved--like me--that there is place for one article, but not two.DGG (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2007 (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.