Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of marathon races

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) 05:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of marathon races

List of marathon races (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I believe this is a case of

• Keep A significant percentage of the entries on this list have articles and a large majority are referenced in some way. The list has 73 references and 455 external links. One editor's failure to see "value" is not a valid argument for deletion. I would not oppose a stricter inclusion standard. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The references, no matter how plentiful, don't establish the notability of the overall topic. Many of the references simply show that an unremarkable marathon exists. Failing

WP:GNG is a valid argument for deletion. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Over 250 of these marathons have Wikipedia articles, and a list of notable marathons is completely justified by policy and practice. A moderate number of red links are usually allowed in list articles. Please feel free to delete any items from the list that you believe to be non-notable. Tightening up the list is fine. Deleting it isn't, in my view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clear inclusion criteria for a notable topic. AfD is not for cleanup. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I would suggest that the real issue is that this topic is too broad, per
  WP:LISTCRUFT #6: "The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable". Also, just because items in the list are notable doesn't make the list itself notable. Tchaliburton (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. I agree with the nominator. The list is too broad to be informative. My experience with this is
  Location (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. Like said above there are soooo many marathon races, it is hard to add all. But i have no problem with such a list just including official IAAF races or something like that. Kante4 (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A valid topic with clear scope. Totally agree that this needs to be better managed. While it's true that over 1000 were held in the U.S. alone in 2013, this misses the fact that four continents probably held fewer races than that between them. It may be worthwhile splitting American races off into List of marathon races in the United States (about 1/3 races listed so far). SFB 19:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Qualifies for an article per
  WP:LISTPURP. If the list becomes too long, content can always be split into new articles (e.g. by country). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 7 August 2014 (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.