Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Parkruns in the United States of America

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 no consensus. I suppose I could relist this, but I don't see any consensus emerging either way in another week. If somebody feels strongly that it should have been relisted, feel free to renominate. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Parkruns in the United States of America[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY Natureium (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sister article to this page List of Parkruns in the United Kingdom was in this sort of shape when it was nominated for deletion as a possible directory - and was kept, that one doesn't look like a directory now. This article just needs time and effort to bring it up to speed. Szzuk (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory, and this is nothing more than a directory. List of Parkruns in the United Kingdom is still just a directory, but with lots of trivial padding added. Its kid sister Draft:List of Junior Parkruns in the UK is yet another, which has recently been declined mainspace-move. Parkrun itself may be notable, but that doesn't mean every (or even any) event they run is notable. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how our list policies work. Per WP:CSC, a valid type of list is one where "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria". — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 17:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would require people to admit that individual park run events are not notable, and stop creating articles for them. Natureium (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Parkruns in the United Kingdom, where it was established pages like this are acceptable, and in my opinion the page passes WP:LISTN. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 17:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Majority of list entries are non notable and many links are just passing mention in various articles. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS based on the result of the AfD from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Parkruns in the United Kingdom we do not automatically assume inherent notability based on another article (to be fair that one should be renominated for deletion as well). Ajf773 (talk)
Comment. Per WP:CSC a valid type of list is one where every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. In addition Parkrun = Park + Run. Parkruns aren't races they are social events so a list of Parks that have a parkrun is encyclopedic. Szzuk (talk) 06:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no category for parkruns in the United States, so point is not valid in this case. Ajf773 (talk) 09:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your comment. I note however that you live in New Zealand, there are plenty of Parkruns there. Why don't you go to one? If you can't run it you can walk it, like many others, it is a good reason to go to the park to get some exercise and enjoy whatever else is there. Szzuk (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment has absolutely no relevance to the purpose of this discussion. I also noticed you created four articles with Parkrun in their title which have all been deleted by consensus, perhaps you need to realise parkruns are not as notable as you make them out to be. Ajf773 (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on content, not the contributor. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What does your comment There is no category for parkruns in the United States, so point is not valid in this case. actually mean? I created those articles with increasing levels of referencing to test what I could and could not add, I started with local refs, then weak national refs, finally ending up with strong national refs and a keep. This is a list not an individual parkrun. Szzuk (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List articles have to be assessed for notability too. Ajf773 (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTN says Notability of lists is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. In discussing "Parkrun" we are discussing the set or group of Parkruns that number hundreds. Parkrun has dozens of references as can be seen in the main article. Szzuk (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We also have a policy called WP:NOTDIRECTORY which lists can easily pertain to be if almost all list entries are comprised of non-articles. The quality of any references are important and the ones provided in this article are lacking in depth of coverage. Ajf773 (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at your Notdirectory link and this article doesn't fit into it anywhere - but it definitely fits into LISTN. Szzuk (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTPURP, since the list is a valuable information source for users interested in parkruns in America, and can be used for further development purposes. This is a Wikinotable list. And as to the argument about each item in the list not being notable: per WP:LISTN, since the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable. -The Gnome (talk) 10:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly is the group or set that is notable? Do we assume that if hotel is notable then we should have lists of every single hotel in the world?? Ajf773 (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have List of hotels. bd2412 T 20:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From that list: "... notable skyscraper landmarks or historic hotels which are covered in multiple reliable publications. It is not to be a directory of every hotel in every country.". The equivalent here would be "not to be a list of every time a group of people go running in a park". — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That ship has sailed, Rwxrwxrwx . We've already established that a parkrun is notable and it's not about "every time a group of people go running in a park." As to "hotels," Ajf773, you're spot on! We have lists of hotels depending on place. We have them from New York to Metro Manila; we have lists of chains, lists of large ones, and lists of casino hotels. We have so many hotel lists that we have a list of lists!

-The Gnome (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where was it determined that a parkrun is notable? Natureium (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2018 (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.