Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wimbledon Common 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 08:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Wimbledon Common Parkrun

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This individual parkrun event is not notable. The sources listed as not RS. I redirected this article to parkrun but was reverted. We've already deleted several of these articles but more keep being created. Natureium (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC) Natureium (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment Very sad that these pages keep getting deleted. These events are attended by so many people and an article for these events would really add to Wikipedia. Not sure what deleting these pages achieves. We could make a nice article for each parkrun, which would be easily navigable by visiting a category list. These do not 'clutter' or 'clog up' Wikipedia, they instead provide interesting insight into the parkrun events. Middledistance99 (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC) Strike comment from block-evading sockpuppet. --Yamla (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a directory of things that might be useful to people, it's an encyclopedia of notable subjects, which apparently these races are not. There are other sites across the web that would be a good place for it, you can even start your own wiki that is dedicated to parkruns in England. ... disco spinster   talk  20:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * True, but these pages are backed up by references and I will help to find more. Middledistance99 (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Keep Major, well established event in the running community. Mentioned by the BBC, as well as in the newspapers. It is not for the good of Wikipedia to delete respectable pages which may be of interest to fellow readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middledistance99 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC) Comment We should keep this article. The book had sold fairly well on Amazon, written by a person with first hand experience of the runs (helping reliability). The fact that the author has had the interest to write the book, with a decent number of people reading it, helps to demonstrate notability.
 * Delete as unencyclopedic. There is simply never going to be much encyclopedic content on the vast majority of parkruns, and all we have here is some general parkrun info and some stats. Anything that makes individual parkruns remarkable can be covered in the Parkrun article, but I don't see anything here. --Michig (talk) 06:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - I think it is highly unlikely that an individual ParkRun would be notable (and I say this as a keen ParkRunner). Currently the only independent source in the article is about ParkRun in general and only gives the briefest of passing mentions to Wimbledon, and I'm not seeing anything else out there...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Parkrun is currently collecting parkrun profiles like this one with a view to printing a book, when that happens it'll be cloned by independent and secondary print sources and these parkruns will all get added - paper print is pretty solid for referencing purposes. Szzuk (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The notion that ParkRun might publish a book, which might get "cloned" (what does that even mean?) sounds a bit WP:CRYSTAL to me.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The ref in the article is fine. Also this could be referenced with this paper print book Szzuk (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, for more or less the same reasons as my !vote at Articles for deletion/Banstead Woods Parkrun 2. There are a few more passing mentions in reliable sources for this than for the Banstead Woods article, but passing mentions is all they are. The Dean Carter book linked above by Szzuk seems to be self-published, and so doesn't help to establish notability. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The book certainly helps establish notability. I don't know whether the book was published by Szzuk, but, it does not matter if it is, as I created the page, therefore the article is not original research. This book in terms of this article is an independant source, with multiple pages dedicated for information regarding the article subject. Middledistance99 (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is suggesting that the book was published by Szzuk. But it was self-published by its author, which in 99.99% of cases disqualifies it from being a reliable source (see WP:SPS)...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Aside from a potential WP:OR issue, that's a self published book and a collection of a bunch of random profiles, so it definitely doesn't meet the threshold of RS or independent and significant. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  15:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

20,000 is a lot of individuals (not cumulative) for the history of an event. I think the SNG for sports should be updated. Middledistance99 (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Without wanting to sound patronising, you really ought to read Notability and Identifying reliable sources, if you haven't already. What you're missing is that notability and reliability have specific meanings on Wikipedia, and are used in ways that differ from the ways we might use those terms in other contexts. For example, one of those differences is that "first hand experience" is actually not what we look for in a reliable source at all: we almost always prefer sources written by people at a distance from their subject. Likewise, a book having sold lots of copies might indicate notability or reliability in other contexts, but it isn't relevant for determining notability or reliability in the senses used by Wikipedia.


 * If you think the notability guidelines ought to be changed, that's of course a totally legitimate position to take, but the case needs to be made at the relevant project talk page (in this case probably Wikipedia talk:Notability (events) or Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)) rather than at an AfD discussion. Best, – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. Article was created by a block-evading sockpuppet. --Yamla (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2018 (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.