Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Level and Incline Running

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. Michig (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Level and Incline Running

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article should be part of the article on running, not a stand-alone article. It is identified as being part of a seminar. TreacherousWays (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Without voicing an opinion on the notability of this particular subject, I'm a bit troubled when articles are created as part of a College course, since such articles usually aren't created with knowledge of what Wikipedia is and isn't. Perhaps someone could reach out to the school mentioned in the article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Possibly merge to running, but what is here is well referenced. Might not be possible to merge due to length, in which case the ancillary article is fine. (Im a deletionist, so double count this vote :) ) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak delete~~ It really is very well-written, but also seems an unnecessary split from running and not particularly well-integrated into wikipedia. Following the links through, it looks to me as if the author(s) have written a number of pretty specialized articles which (perhaps) ought to have been part of other articles but which are so well-written and researched that deletion seems extreme. Upon consideration, I would be uncomfortable recommending deletion; a long-standing editor with a project-wide view ought to review this situation. If it's not unique, then precedent can be used. If it is unique, then more experienced eyes are needed. I just don't know what to say about a college lecture series in wikipedia, is all. TreacherousWays (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So far as I can tell, the nomination and discussion relates to whether this article establishes notability. It seems to me multiple independent reliable sources are used as references which provide significant coverage to perfectly well indicate notability. Hence, the article is permitted in its own right and so whether it might better be merged elsewhere is purely an editorial matter. A merge with running would unbalance that article and, moreover, the present article seems to me very satisfactory in its present scope. The title is not ideal but that is not a matter for AfD. I am not too comfortable with the talk page linking in a rather promotional manner, but the article itself does not suffer from this defect. Thincat (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article provides comparisons between level running and incline running. The sourcing is academic in nature, and the article itself has sufficient inline citations, although the addition of more would benefit it. Merging to the Running article would make that article even longer, whereas this article is a reasonable content fork of the running article. Furthermore, the article is well-written and encyclopedic. Despite the fact that it was contributed by a specialized seminar group, the article is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.