Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March March march

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. I have added a brief note to March, Cambridgeshire. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March March march

March March march (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable ramble by some Cambridge academics. Appears to be a case of WP:NFT. Snthdiueoa (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Very weak delete. Okay it doesn't comply with WP:BIO but can't the site be fun too? --The Ghost | ^séance 14:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Notable if only because of the homophonous title phrase which includes 3 seperate meanings of the word march. Lumos3 (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• • According to WP:ATA, "I like it" isn't a valid reason for keeping an article. 213.208.81.149 (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Although I am generally in favour of wikipedia's more quirky articles, I have strong doubts as a member of the University as to the notability of this event (which I must admit I had never heard of before), and fear it would open the door to inclusion of various other university "traditions" which are not at all widely known outside of a small group of participants. The novel combination of 3 meanings of the same word does not make it encyclopedic, wikipedia is not a place for neologisms. Robotforaday (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to March, Cambridgeshire. I'll agree, it's kind of neat, as was the full (26+ miles) marathon race that someone organized between two communities Marathon, Wisconsin and Athens, Wisconsin, but its only notability seems to be the great pun. Mandsford (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per Mandsford. It would be a shame to lose this and I think it deserves a place in the article about the town as a "local interest" piece. --JamesJJames (talk) 08:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per Mandsford, perhaps with a little pruning: quirky bit of local trivia, has at least a hint of notability [1], would be a shame to lose it completely. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 21:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• delete - a shame to lose what? a link to their homepage detailing the event? nothing is lost in deleting this article, which does not currently meet guidelines for inclusion. change to keep if 3rd party sources with the event as a the primary subject are added (should be easy, if notable). ∴ here…♠ 23:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • As the original nominator, I would like to change my recommendation to speedy delete (A7, does not assert its significance.) Its home page describes it as a "pointless" walk which was founded for no other reason than "it seemed like a good idea at the time" and that last year nobody even turned up for it. I don't think relisting it was actually necessary to be honest. But having said that, you must admit that it is rather funny. Snthdiueoa (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It doesn't have to be notable in itself to be merged - it just has to be verifiable and relevant to the target article, which it is. And at least one reasonable source thinks it's worth a mention in an article about March. I can also testify that it has some degree of local fame in Cambridgeshire - I have no connection to the university, but had heard of it, and been amused by it, before. (Yes, I know that's an ATA, but I don't care.} So I think it can justify a couple of sentences in the March article. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 00:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • There's no reason why it shouldn't have a mention in the March, Cambridgeshire article -- that isn't up for discussion (notability does not limit article content) and the appropriate place to discuss that is the talk page for March, Cambridgeshire. What we are discussing here is whether it warrants having an article of its own, and in the absence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, it doesn't. Snthdiueoa (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to March per above and redirect. It is relevant to consider merger here, because if the article is deleted the content can't be merged. The history has to still be available to comply with GFDL. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Good point, however, there isn't anything that the March article needs to say in addition to what it already says. Virtually all the content of this article is reproduced verbatim from the event's web page, all we have in terms of secondary sources is a one line mention in a local tourist brochure, and to go above and beyond that in terms of merging would be original research and/or not independently verifiable. Snthdiueoa (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not worth merging (and part of the article is a copyvio from [2]). Last few times they held it, there were 5, 3, 5, and zero participants. No wonder they want some publicity. If we still had BJAODN, there would be a place for it. DGG (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Amusing but no evidence of notability. NBeale (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

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.