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. postdlf ( talk) 13:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

List of Parkruns in the United Kingdom

List of Parkruns in the United Kingdom (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

The list is based almost entirely on primary sources, and consists of little more than a dump of the Parkrun database with liberal additions of promotional language and trivial statistics. Violates WP:RS, WP:NOTDIR. — Rwxrwxrwx ( talk) 11:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. The individual events are not notable in their own right, and all the info is on the PR site. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. WP:NOTDIR and all 5km running races are pretty much non notable. Ajf773 ( talk) 11:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep This is a sensible spinoff from the main article about Parkrun and so the worst case would be to merge back there, per WP:PRESERVE. There's no reason to do this though as the page passes WP:LISTN. For example, see London Parkrun reviews. Andrew D. ( talk) 17:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep, because Parkruns are quite different from normal 5Ks in that their spread has been a subject of substantial independent media coverage, including in the Wall Street Journal [1], The Guardian [2], and many others (111,000 Google News results with quotes around the term). Much of this coverage is focused on or assumes knowledge of the locations / number of Parkrun races, so a complete list is very helpful in a reference work to comprehend the coverage, which is one reason for Wikipedia lists in the first place. Whether or not a list is available on other websites or the PR site should have no bearing on this Wikipedia article, so I don't think that should be used as a deletion reason (but for the record I was not able to find a list with as much info online).

I agree that the article was not perfect, so I took action and made some changes to eliminate all the promotional language / peacock terms and fix the sources. Most of the races listed also have third-party coverage -- maybe not enough to warrant their own articles, but certainly the article could be improved further by adding those third-party references to each list item if anyone wants to try that. I also think it's worth noting that this notability issue was discussed three months ago with some very important points to consider on the talk page here. The Wikipedians in that discussion ultimately kept the article, and I think it should remain on the wiki for others to improve it.

Thanks, -- Habst ( talk) 06:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC) reply

• The notable topic you are looking for is Parkrun. A list of every parkrun, given it appears every single entry does not have an article or is simply refrerenced by parkrun.co.uk. It's a directory which is what Wikipedia is not. Ajf773 ( talk) 11:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC) reply

• Hi Ajf773, thanks for your points. I don't think the fact that lists are available elsewhere online is a valid deletion reason -- just because you can probably find the List of The Big Bang Theory episodes on a company website doesn't mean it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Likewise every entry on a Wikipedia list doesn't need to be article-worthy (though I think some specific Parkruns certainly are), for example see how most of the entries in the prior list don't have their own articles. While Wikipedia isn't a directory, it is a reference work, and I think a list of Parkruns in the UK, where the vast majority of Parkrun coverage is centered around, is a valuable addition to an encyclopedia to understand that news coverage, as nearly all of the hundreds of Parkrun articles in the British media are centered around knowledge of a particular Parkrun event. -- Habst ( talk) 03:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep Parkrun is the most prominent running series in the United Kingdom. At the very least, this should be a candidate for merging to Parkrun rather than deletion. SFB 18:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep since mother subject comfortably meets notability, plus having a list of events clearly serves the encyclopaedic mission. Also, having the full list of events in the main article would be quite unwieldy, so I'd be opposed to a Merge. - The Gnome ( talk) 11:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Please explain... given the entire list is of non-articles and predominantly sourced by parkrun.co.uk, a primary source ... how this satisfies WP:SAL. Ajf773 ( talk) 11:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC) reply

I would not claim the list itself does not need a trimming. - The Gnome ( talk) 13:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Then it would no longer be a list of all the UK Parkruns, would it? Thereby defeating the point of the list. — Rwxrwxrwx ( talk) 13:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC) reply

That's because the list is a directory, not an article. Ajf773 ( talk) 21:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC) reply

I understand that, but I don't consider it a directory as much as I consider it a table in a reference work that aids my understanding of Parkrun-related news coverage. For example reading the article "10 fastest times at UK parkruns" released just yesterday, this list can be very helpful to understand which courses are fast and where they all are. -- Habst ( talk) 09:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi Rwxrwxrwx, I think there are actually quite a few of these list items that have articles, for example Bushy Parkrun, Nonsuch Parkrun, Weald Country Park#Brentwood Parkrun, Kingsbury Water Park#Events, Shorne Wood Country Park#parkrun, Victoria Park, Belfast#Belfast Victoria Parkrun, Hesketh Park, Southport#Parkrun, Victoria Park, Widnes#Parkrun, Victoria Park, St Helens#Parkrun, Kings Park, Boscombe#Attractions, and Wepre Park#Parkrun among many others. Rather than being deleted the list should be improved by linking to them. I think the list pretty clearly satisifies WP:SAL, which does not state that organizations in a list each need to be worthy of their own articles (though some certainly are in this case). I don't think shortening the list is the right move but it's certainly better than deletion; the list would not be pointless in that case anyways as there are hundreds of lists which use the {{ Dynamic list}} template in this way. -- Habst ( talk) 13:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Sections of articles (using the # symbol) are NOT articles. Ajf773 ( talk) 21:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC) reply

I agree, Ajf773. That's why I think that the list meets WP:SAL#Lists of companies and organizations, because individual articles per parkrun are not needed (but in some cases they do exist anyways). -- Habst ( talk) 09:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC) reply

A significant number need to be notable. Majority of those links are passing mentions. There are two articles, one of which barely survived an AfD. Ajf773 ( talk) 10:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC) reply

I think all of the listed parkruns are notable in the colloquial sense of the term. In terms of WP:N, I don't think WP:SAL says that a significant number of the entries need to be notable (they would if this was a list of living people, but as this is a list of events it does not apply). There are over three million registered Parkrun users, and I think the organization is in general underrepresented on Wikipedia. -- Habst ( talk) 12:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC) reply

I do not think lists in Wikipedia are supposed to be either exhaustive or deleted, Rwxrwxrwx. I'm sure we accept lists of whatever is known and can be gathered, as long as the list is adequate and serves an encyclopaedic purpose. There's always the implied authorization to expand and improve. Take care. - The Gnome ( talk) 05:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. In order to address the concern this might be a directory I've just referenced 18 of the first 25 entries. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12][ [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. This represents a reference rate of 72% and extrapolating to the whole article 371 out of the 516 entries could be referenced in the same way. Szzuk ( talk) 06:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

How does that make it any less of a directory? Those references merely confirm those few events exist, not that they are notable in any way, nor that the entire list no longer violates WP:NOTDIR: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists". — Rwxrwxrwx ( talk) 09:05, 7 July 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.