Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scumrun

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The result was nomination withdrawn. Thryduulf (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scumrun

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

I can't see what is really notable about this event, all reliable sources have to do with fundraising for its entrants, plus there is nothing salvagable about this article. Therefore fails WP:VERIFY and WP:NOTABILITY Donnie Park (talk) 10:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There does seem to be enough secondary coverage about this topic.[1][2][3][4] Contrary to the nom's suggestion, sources don't have to be primarily about a topic, but just give significant coverage, even if it's in articles/books/etc. about other topics. In this case, the topic is covered very well in the Scumrun fundraising articles and a good argument can be made that sources about Scumrun fundrasing are sources about the Scumrun. And a topic only "fails" WP:VERIFY if it is impossible to verify which is not the case with this topic.--Oakshade (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These links are of local papers, sometimes asking to raise funds for charity. I'm sure this is what anybody can do, how, contact the press office of a local paper, tell them that you are raising funds for charity to comepte in some self-indulgent charity event, after getting a photo taken by a press photographer and an interview, sooner or later, press coverage and brief fame. How do I know, a former work colleague of mine did that once to raise money to go for a skydive. If this decision was to be made keep, because of local papers in regard of fundraising activities, there I will say this, there is something wrong with Wikipedia. Donnie Park (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completely blind speculation as to why reliable sources covered a topic is a violation of Wikipedia:No original research and is not a proper basis to decide content. As for the "local papers" charge, WP:NOTABILITY does not and has never "banned" local sources as evidence of notability. As long as the sources are independent of the topic and have editorial control over their coverage, they are considered reliable sources. Besides, the sources aren't just local, but from all over the country (Carlisle, Ely and Worthing). But again, even if they were from one locality, the sources would still be valid per WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Donnie Park (talk) 11:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Scotsman[5] is not a local newspaper. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I'm surprised to see this nominated; it's an event that has been taking place for several years, involving at least triple-figures numbers of participants from (and in) several countries, and raising not insignificant charity funds. It has received media attention (significant amounts in various sports and custom car magazines). I haven't found an independent source (yet) but for what it's worth this year's event was launched by rather well-known publicist Max Clifford which suggests that it is "on the radar" in notability terms. – Kieran T ^(talk) 12:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am willing to accept its notability and withdraw the nomination. Donnie Park (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2009 (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.