Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The King Street Run (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Herostratus 13:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The King Street Run

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Previously nominated Votes for deletion/The King Street Run in September 2005 when it was closed as No Consensus with 10 deletes, 2 moves and 3 keeps (that's 3 - 1 against keeping). There is no supporting evidence that this pub crawl is notable. The only evidence available is from this pub crawl being advertised on Wiki for nearly two years. An internet search reveals mentions of the pub, but little on the pub crawl itself. The current "evidence" points to a local CAMRA page suggesting several pub crawls, one of which contains a couple of pubs mentioned for this pub crawl, but not the pub crawl itself. The Hash House Harriers who apparantly organise this pub crawl do not mention it on their website. I did attempt to edit the article into information on the pub itself, but even the pub is not notable. A section on the main Cambridge article itself might be given over to the most notable pubs in Cambridge, supported by references; but stand alone articles on local pubs are questionable. SilkTork 11:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable pub crawl. I don't understand why it survived the previous AfD. BTLizard 12:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm possibly biased as I grew up in Cambridge so am more familiar with this than I would be with something similar elsewhere, but the KSR is more notable than your typical pub crawl. It dates back a lot longer (to at least the 1950s and probably the 1900s, depending on who you believe); it's notable enough in the local area that it's immediately recognisable even by non-university-related residents (there's even a pub named after the tradition); it's recognised as a local tradition by Cambridge council, it's been covered in genuine news sources , —   irides centi   (talk to me!)  12:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It looks like the information cited comes from the Wiki article rather than the Wiki article comes from those sources. This Wiki article has been around for nearly two years. SilkTork 13:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the second source looks quite interesting. Gives more information than has been available so far. However, even though there is some evidence that the pub crawl has taken place and still exists in some form, that in itself doesn't make it notable. SilkTork 16:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge into Public Houses in Cambridge. For whatever reason, articles are frequently created on Cambridge pubs, none of which are ever likely to make it past stub status.  I feel that this page could make a decent core for such a page, especially since some of the historical versions of the page contain more information on the individual pubs. Bluap 14:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep- Per Iridescenti, this seems to be one of the major of the pup crawls and it has recieved third party coverage. There's too much subject-specific information in this article to merge.  --Oakshade 18:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Biased Keep- I have to declare a conflict of interest here - I run with the Cantabrigensis HHH, however I haven't been involved with the king st run. I would have thought however that having a pub named after it would be enough to make it more notable than most pub crawls. Also I found another reference - The current edition of ALE newsletter, which is available in most Cambridge pubs, contains a review of the St Radegund, with mention of the King St Run (here). --Ozhiker 23:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Iridescenti, the subject is notable as one of the major pub crawls and has received satisfactory third party coverage. Yamaguchi先生 07:30, 28 May 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.