Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Random run

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 of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Random run

This is not really notable enough to deserve its own article. "Random run" seems to be something the sitemakers thought up, and Alexa doesn't agree that randomrun.org is notable ([1])..therefore..we might wanna delete this "social phenomenon". -- SoothingR^(pour) 09:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete-per Soothing -Reid A. 09:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; silly neologism and website, not notable. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-11 09:50:02Z
• Delete: Not Notable Nonsense. But please don't bother citing Alexa. It is completely unscientific and is hit or miss because it depends on who signs up and misses large segments of the population like myself who refuse to sign up. Hu 11:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Unless an article cites sources itself, we have to rely on things like Alexa and Google to determine it for us. Any search engine will miss sites that are not visited/linked to by people who use that particular search engine or sites that are listed in it. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Google is a fine impartial citation because it is automatically generated. Alexa is self-selected according to the marketing they employ and who signs up, which makes it useless as a citation. Hu 13:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Do NOT Delete: People (especially kids) have always done random runs so the phenomenon exists long before the Wikipedia article and the website randomrun.org. The article is an attempt to formalize the phenomenon. If banal daily activities as running and sitting (especially Chair sitting positions Sitting#Chair_sitting_positions) have articles so should random running as well. As for it not being successful on Alexa - I do not see how an internet monitoring service can be relevant in determining weather something that exists much before internet is relevant enough to have a Wikipedia article. Also it is not a neologism because it is not a newly coined phrase or even a phrase, it is just the only possible description of the action just as good food is not neologism but just a basic way to describe food. To name random running something else would be to create a neologism. People do random runs but it is not something that was ever formally discussed or documented - this is the only issue. However I agree that it needs more resources than a personal website randomrun.org and a much better text. If these are the reasons to delete it please do until better definition and resources are found, but I think random run is something that deserves an article nevertheless. Maybe random run should be included within the article “Running” since that article seams very narrow - it focuses mostly on competitive running which is a sport while random running is not a sport. Thanks. NikolaT
• Delete Wikipedia should be used for things that already are notable, not to publicize them or make them notable. --Groucho 16:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Article is updated - please check the new article. Thanks. NikolaT
• Delete per nom and others. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - and frankly, this article would be acceptable if it was talking about random paths in computer science. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 20:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you mean random walks? Uncle G 01:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Do NOT Delete: examing and naming identifiable slices of life is a worthwile endeavor, and once classified, could lead to more fruitful research. joseph mcelroy
  • Comment: Wikipedia is not a research institution. I think this Random run junk is another prank just like the Bitties joke: see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitties. Hu 01:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I don't mind if you delete the article based on reasonable arguments because this very process is a learning experience, but I would appreciate it if you refrain from insults and provocations such as calling what I wrote junk. It should be clear that this is not a prank nor a joke. Even if it were, that is not a reason for aggressive behaviour. This is by no means an emotional discussion. Thanks NikolaT
• The author, writing above, states that "[p]eople do random runs but it is not something that was ever formally discussed or documented". That is a strong argument that this article is unverifiable and original research. By our policies, subjects do not belong here until they have been discussed, documented, peer reviewed, and accepted into the corpus of human knowledge. The author thus makes a good case for the article to be deleted.

  There are documented things known as random runs. There is a social event held at The International Conference on Random Structures and Algorithms in Poznań and a game made up by a sports equipment manufacturer. But they have nothing to do with what this article purports to describe. Delete. Uncle G 01:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: No one still answered the argument about Chair sitting positions Sitting#Chair_sitting_positions. Thanks NikolaT

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.