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. No policy based reason given for keep, not much to merge. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wimbledon Common parkrun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I believe the article fails WP:N, as I have not been able to find a reliable, independent, and secondary source offering non-trivial coverage of the Wimbledon Common parkrun. BlueVine (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because I believe it also fails WP:N, because I have been unable to find a reliable, independent, and secondary source offering non-trivial coverage of this run either:

Richmond parkrun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article creators have not indicated any notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete - the event is popular - not by itself grounds for keeping, but it shows it is non-trivial. And there are plenty of independent sources that refer both to the event and to the parkrun concept. The local media consider it worthy enough to report on a weekly basis. Have added a brief section to the article to link to these sources. Will do the same for Richmond parkrun which has also been flagged for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crispyhull (talk • contribs) 10:24, November 13, 2008
• I believe you may have misunderstood my application of the phrase "non-trivial" in my first post in this discussion. I am not contending that the runs are trivial. When I used the phrase "non-trivial" in my first post, I was referring to the fact that I could find no independent, reliable, and secondary sources which are offering significant coverage of the run, in as so far as its coverage extends beyond listing race details, individual times, records, and other relatively trivial information when compared to information about the race's importance for the community, history, e.t.c.

I do not believe any of the sources listed on either the Richmond parkrun article, or the Wimbeldon Common parkun article, mean that either article satisfies WP:N.

• 1)Richmond and Twickenham Times (located on Richmond parkrun article): After searching its website, I have indeed discovered reports of Richmond parkun races [1]. However, these reports merely detail who has won, and other basic race details, which I do not believe qualifies as non-trivial coverage.
• 2)Reuters article on parkun (located on both Richmond parkrun and Wimbledon Common parkrun articles): This article's focus is on the parkun franchise in general. Shows that the parkrun franchise in general is notable, but not the two races specifically, imo.
• 3)Richmond parkrun entry on Runners World (located on Richmond parkrun article): Unable to access the area of the website concerning the run, as I need to become a member. I have now become a member, and I have discovered that the entry is an internet poll, in which people can vote for what they think of the run. According to WP:Reliable Sources, an internet poll is not a reliable source of information, and WP:N states that a source needs to be reliable in order to be considered as to whether its subject is notable.

Other sources on the Richmond parkrun article are either parkrun franchise articles, which do not classify as independent, or a link which takes you to a website that is about the park where the run takes place itself, as opposed to focusing on the run.

• 4)Wimbledon Guardian article (located on Wimbledon Common parkun article): After searching its website, I have indeed discovered reports of Wimbeldon Common parkun races [[2], but like the Richmond and Twickenham Times website, these reports merely detail who has won, and other basic race details, which I do not believe qualifies as non-trivial coverage.
• 5)Wimbledon Common parkrun entry on Runners World (located on Wimbledon Common parkun article): Could not access the part of this website regarding the run, as I need to become a member. I have now become a member, and I have discovered that the entry is an internet poll, in which people can vote for what they think of the run. According to WP:Reliable Sources, an internet poll is not a reliable source of information, and WP:N states that a source needs to be reliable in order to be considered as to whether its subject is notable.

Other sources listed on the Wimbledon Common parkun article are parkrun franchise articles, which do not classify as independent.

As a result of the problems that I believe exist with the sources I have listed, I still do not believe either article statisfies WP:N.BlueVine (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge -- This matter can adequately be covered in the parkrun and Wimbledon Common articles (and the Richmond one likewise). I am adding the necessary paragraph to Wimbledon common. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not merge -- the point of this page is to try to reach some consensus. You should not go ahead and merge, before such consensus has been reached. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crispyhull (talk • contribs) 15:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete -- Please could I ask would would constitute non-trivial coverage? It being a weekly running event, coverage of such an evnt could only really focus on results, and other race details Crispyhull (talk • contribs) 15:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to have been covered substantively in newspaper and magazine articles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note you can only vote once in this process indicating your preference. You are welcome to comment as many times as you'd like though. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, merging any useful content into parkrun. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Two eggregiously passing references in the one news story. Bongomatic 15:21, 17 November 2008 (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.