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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 03:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Comers Track Meets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article is nothing more than a dictionary definition, for a term that probably doesn't need one. The occurrence of the phrase in some of the sources does not make this worthy of inclusion. Drmies (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — a cursory Google search (sans the Deletionpedia entry which does not count) shows that this is commonly used here. Cleanup and referencing are necessary, but the term seems notable enough to avoid deletion. MuZemike (talk) 07:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider a rename as the article's name doesn't seem right. I cannot think of anything right now. Maybe someone else can. MuZemike (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe--and I looked at your Google search, but don't see anything there that would generate more than a one-sentence or one-paragraph definition, nothing beyond what a dictionary *might* have. I mean, this isn't exactly a concept like Revival meeting, or is it? There is no cultural, social, religious breadth or depth here, as far as I can tell (but I hate running--I prefer riding my bicycle). Drmies (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — while the phrase is commonly understandable by looking at it carefully, outside of the UK it is an uncommon combination of words. In respect, specifically to the sport of Track and Field (known as Athletics worldwide) this is a common phrase, describing the most open of public participation events. This defining of the concept, using these words is important to someone who is not already involved in the sport. Wikipedia is here to inform, right? The urge some people have to delete information from Wikipdeia astounds me. When an article is short, which could otherwise be called concise, it comes under more attack. There is no denying that these type of events EXIST all across the USA and Canada. We define similar, low key, popular events such as a Street fair and grass roots sports like Little League Baseball with articles on Wikipedia, what makes All Comer Track Meets so different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackinfo (talk • contribs) 22:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists is not a reason to keep an article (Little League Baseball is an entirely different kind of animal, and Street Fair is as weak as All Comers Track Meets). Wikipedia is here to inform--but there are a lot of kinds of information WP is not supposed to provide, see WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not, for instance, a dictionary, via WP:NOTDICDEF. And about my urge, well, you don't know me, and you might assume good faith--another useful policy (WP:AGF)! Drmies (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this were a simple definition of the words, it would be something like an on-line dictionary defines the term "all who come, or offer, to take part in a matter, especially in a contest or controversy." But this is in regards to the specific sport of Track and Field, it is a category of events. Any mention of any sport requires the defining of its categories before further discussion of their significance can ensue. The term is used commonly in the sport, including outside the USA. [1][2] North American reference to the term to describe that category of event (and of course said events) are numerous. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

This article goes beyond the definition and DOES provide significant description ABOUT the character of events the term defines. In regards to (WP:AGF), you were the one who admitted to your prejudice against this subject matter in your first response. If you are prejudiced or even ill informed about a subject, should you be actively seeking to quash its content on WP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackinfo (talk • contribs) 02:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was a joke. And if my hypothetical hatred of running disqualifies me, so does your love of it. Besides, you are the creator of the article, and your name by definition damages your objectivity--if you want to look at that way. Which I don't. And AGF here means you should assume my good faith, not look for a conspiracy against running. To show my good faith, I'll take the dog for a walk tonight, and let's just drop this, OK? I like Wikipedia, that's most important.

Now, for these references, let's look at one, the last one. I have been arguing that the title and subject of the article is nothing more than the sum of its words (All Comers + Track Meet = All Comers Track Meet). Your last reference makes mention of an Indoor All-Comers Meet (no Track involved, significantly); does that mean that two articles are warranted, one for indoors and one for outdoors meets? You said that "this article goes beyond the definition...": which article specifically were you talking about? The WP article? If that is unsourced, then it's WP:OR... Remember: the burden required by WP:N is to find secondary sources, not primary sources. In other words, this article can only stand if there are articles explaining something significant about this term, this concept, etc.; announcements of track meets are not sufficient. I never doubted that such meets exist. Drmies (talk) 05:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being well informed about a subject should not disqualify one from being able to write intelligently about it. Being poorly informed about a subject should disqualify one from being able to accurately judge its significance. By placing writing in the public view on WP, it is expected to come under review and will be subject to editing of any incorrect assertations that might be included. That would include the primary assertion that this is a legitimate term to describe this category of events within the sport. Any google search should independently prove the term's widespread use, specifically within this sport. The article's presence has been noticed. Over the last 6 months, some public editing has taken place, primarily disambiguation. It is an adjunct to the master article of Track and Field that already mentions other categories of competitions within the sport, including Indoor and Outdoor differentiations. My knowledge of this level, attempts to accurately convey the feeling of this style of event. Occasionally the subject does get written coverage of specific events, [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] and photos [16] [17], it is mentioned in the lore of participants as mentioned in the previous reference #6, but the majority of independent coverage is pre-meet announcements [18] and results, which are plentiful and prove thousands of people participate in these events. With further research, mentions of this category of events spans longer than 50 years [19]. This article took many anecdotal references to come to a summation. Listing these articles to justify or consolidate a summation of a style would unnecessarily overpopulate references with only minimal support provided from any one source. There is no justification to remove this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackinfo (talk • contribs) 00:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "Being well informed about a subject should not disqualify one from being able to write intelligently about it. Being poorly informed about a subject should disqualify one from being able to accurately judge its significance." Right. Except that I never said anything like that, and anyone who can read the discussion above, which has gone on for way too long, can verify this: you said that I can't judge because I hate running; I said perhaps you can't judge because you love it. Same difference, except that I offered you the hand of friendship and good faith; I proposed we drop it--now let's drop it. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would love that we drop it. Unfortunately, through your actions, this article is unnecessarily under attack. Drop your attack, leave the article alone and we can go away happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackinfo (talk • contribs) 07:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:In the interests of calling a spade a spade, it's clear that the article reads like promotional material for trackinfo.org, a link you've added to several articles in addition to creating this one. If you want to save the article from attack, the best thing to do is remove the spam and reliably reference some of its content. If that can't be done, then it should be deleted per policy. Phil153 (talk) 06:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, absent reliable references discussing the actual subject of the article as a topic. We're not a dictionary and I don't think the topic "All Comers Track Meet" has been the *subject* of reliable sources as a notable independent topic. I'd be happy to change my mind if some are provided. For example, we don't have a topic for High school basketball (it redirects to basketball) or Amateur athletics, even though both are more frequent events than "all comers track meets". Phil153 (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the ascii combination of "trackinfo" appears in wikipedia in multiple cases, only two other placements are of my own generation. Both of those references I give are specific references to supporting articles I have written on my own website for those specific subjects, in much the same manner as I do have a supporting page for this subject, which is a constantly updating calendar of the type of events this article describes. The support information I provide is in support of the general article here and provides many further links. I am not a spammer, nor do I have any commercial interest in providing the information I do provide anywhere on wikipedia.Trackinfo

• Delete. It is an interesting article in its way, but that doee not make it notable. It is very much an essay. While not a fan of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (etc), if we have this article then we also need Come All Ye nights for folk clubs, etc. This article is worthy of a small section in articles about athletics meetings in general, and is probably worth redirecting to one such article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 13:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect to Track and field athletics which already discusses the subject; redirect instead of deleting because this is a useful search phrase. Baileypalblue (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect per Baileypalblue. THF (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to Track and field athletics#All Comers Track Meets (and fix caps), expanding that section a bit. I've never heard the term in American English (AFAIK we just talk about running unattached), but it seems recognizable to UK speakers... and it's worth having at least some information on, since it's a special kind of meet. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note--I wouldn't be opposed to a merge of some of the article to Track and Field. Right now, the article is trying very hard to 'be' an article; a merge would obviate that need. The phrase might well be a useful search phrase. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect - It does not seem very article-like, but is just naked prose. Hogvillian (talk) 06:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note--There is a short mention of All Comers Track meets in the master Track and Field article. I think if the majority of this article were contained in the master article it would unnecessarily detract from that overall subject. This article is exactly what a related stub would be. In this case I have fleshed out the subject into a full article of its own. It appears to be getting penalized for that. Throughout Wikipedia, there are hundreds, probably thousands of stubs with generic incomplete information just related to this sport. Each of those articles deserves better development, not deletion. And this article does not deserve deletion because it contains more information than your average stub. Perhaps the last sentence, and the friendly "don't be surprised if" conjecture or deviate off the sanitized point. Does a friendly writing style necessitate deletion? Further searching for different sources to back up each statement could be done (note 19 additional references I found just for this defense). References to All Comers Track Meet (s) in those words abound on the internet--it is the most common term to describe this category of events, events that do occur. Unattached running is a different concept entirely. Do I need to write you an article on that? Most references to All Comers Track Meets are time based, promoting an upcoming event, or results and a story of one that recently happened--many of those sources will not dependably sustain. Would more documentation of those points make you happy? I've added a few. Trackinfo
• Keep Several references have been added. As the running article is focused on the mechanical act of running, and I can't find any Wikipedia article on the sport, I think the least we can do is save this and consider merging it as appropriate when a running (sport) article is developed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I would have originally said to delete, but the article has improved since when the AfD was started. The references added assert enough notability to keep the article. Trusilver 06:49, 21 January 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.