Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teens Run Modesto


 * 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   delete. Per Mooresno, other reliable sources may exist to prove notability per WP:ORG. As the delete !votes point out, though, at the moment no such sources exist in the article. I have userfied this one to my own userspace to look at it (User:Black Kite/TRM). If anyone wants to improve that before I get round to it, feel free. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Teens Run Modesto

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A high school program that currently fails WP:ORG. 132 04:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment as nominator - Currently, all sources are local or from the official site, which fails WP:ORG per non-commercial organizations. --132 05:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - This nomination was in extreme bad form and assumed no good faith by its nominator. 13 tagged the article with a Speedy Delete which I declined and then explained on thirteen squared's talkpage. I am not the article's creator. When I had editted the article to include an Under Construction tag, thirteen squared re-established the Speedy Delete and removed the maintenance tag. Thirteen squared then PROD'ed the article which I also declined. All of this can be viewed in the article's history and took less than eight minutes. It is just about time for me to log off but I have reworked the article to the best of my ability. --Morenooso (talk) 06:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that is the process of deleting articles. Speedy -> Prod -> AFD. I have done nothing wrong here, except re-adding a speedy, which I explained very early on was a mix-up and when I tried to remove it, you had already done so and I received an edit conflict. You have made knee-jerk reactions about my nomination and good faith left and right (see my talk page and here), incidentally, all while you were harassing me with accusations of bad faith and threats of "reporting" me, some over totally baseless accusations like the maintenance tag, which still isn't true.


 * I never felt the article passed WP:ORG and still don't. When you removed the prod (which would have given you a week to work on the article), I didn't feel you had sufficiently found sources or established notability, so I brought it here, as per deletion process. As it stands, the only sources you have listed are local and not national or international in scale, which is required per WP:CLUB. It's perfectly fine for you to disagree with my view of the article, that's why this forum is here, but please stop harassing me. Your time would be better served by finding better sources and explaining why you feel the article meets WP:ORG--132 13:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I fully understand the SD and PROD process. My declinations right away to you should have been an indication that other reliable sources exist that will establish notability as per WP:CLUB. --Morenooso (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Being nominated for SPEEDY, PROD, or AFD does not mean you can't improve the article. Removing nominations does not indicate that the sources exist, you finding and citing them does. --132 13:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per WP:CLUB this article drew notable reliable coverage to include CBS 13, which is a television station in Sacramento, California, whose Arbitron rating ranks within the top 21 percent of the U.S. market. --Morenooso (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The news station is located less than an hour and a half from the city this is located in. In my humble opinion, that's not national or international coverage. Also, it's a plug for the recent marathon they organized and no one ever even mentioned the subject of this even once. --132 14:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Coverage in Modesto Bee newspaper in multiple places according to a quick use of Google news source. And CBS 13 news station covered it.  They got a notable person, NASA astronaut Jose Hernández, involved in this.  Nothing gained by deleting it.   D r e a m Focus  11:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Modesto Bee is a local source, which does not establish notability for an article per WP:CLUB. The CBS 13 source is less than an hour and a half from the location and, IMHO, is still local (nor did it actually mention the group this debate is about). The astronaut was involved in the marathon the group organized, not the actual group. I think there might be an issue here of marathon vs. group. Just because the group organized the marathon (and that's assuming the marathon is notable in the first place), it does not mean the group inherits notability. I think both topics (club and marathon) might be eligible as a merge to the Modesto article, but not as a stand-alone article. --132 04:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 23:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - First off, I didn't look into the discussion at the top in depth, but I don't think that consistently nominating an article under speedy, the prod, then here, is in bad faith per se. It may be otherwise, but I don't see that substantive argument being made above, just the procedural one. My !vote is based on the sources almost exclusively from Modesto: 3 from one week of the Modesto Bee, another two from "Run Modesto", another from the local TV station (same week), and the national ones being, in my estimation, simple announcements of the race/winner. I don't see how any of this is non-trivial coverage that indicates notability. Local marathons (half marathons in this case) will be reported on in the local news, but that doesn't make them notable more widely. In addition, while I see references to the race, I'm unconvinced that these sources really discuss the organization (the topic of this nomination) in depth enough to qualify under WP:N. If someone can point out to me the source that does, I'd change my opinion. Shadowjams (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Shadowjams. -- Nuujinn (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Shadowjams. I have considered the article and arguments, and I can't add anything new to his arguments. Stifle (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2010 (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.