Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have walked across Tasmania, Australia

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. slakr^\ talk / 10:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have walked across Tasmania, Australia

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

Fails WP:GNG same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have walked the perimeter of Tasmania, Australia - of local interest only. As Tasmania is 320 kilometres (200 mi) across, walking across it (while admirable and certainly impressive) does not have the same significance as walking across a continent or large country IMO. - —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The circumstances surrounding this article are different from List of people who have walked the perimeter of Tasmania, Australia. That was a single-person list; this list has seven people on it, so WP:COATRACK shouldn't apply. Orthogonal1 (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I removed WP:COATRACK. Now it just needs to meet GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are 20 citations on the article. Surely this would meet GNG? Orthogonal1 (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not a notable achievement. Transcontinental walk, List of people who have walked across the United States and Australia okay, but Tasmania? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Clarityfiend: Is this your personal opinion? Many reliable sources have reported about people who have performed this activity. No offense intended, but your rationale comes across as rather subjective. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I could compile an equally well-sourced List of people who have swallowed goldfish: e.g. Lothrop Withington, Jr., Gavin Hope and Rachel Carey in 2014, etc. Walking 200 miles is trivial, something that most people could do without great difficulty, just like goldfish swallowing. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So if Tasmania had a lengthier diameter, than it would be all right? E.g see List of people who have walked across Australia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I also see that one person walked a mere 255 km in 20 days. That's an extremely leisurely pace. If practically everyone can do it, it's not a noteworthy accomplishment. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I support the reply. Close examination of the two articles, the style and the manner created suggest that the limited understanding of WP:ABOUT and WP:NOT, and an even closer examination of the details walk across, and walk perimeter descriptions are misrepresentations of the actual events, and should not be accepted as valid reasons for articles, as hundreds of people do similar things without the publicity on a regular basis User:JarrahTree 02:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sport-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - both articles are problematic - not for the reasons given above, the least being Tasmania, Australia is not found in local usage for a start. Recentism, non encyclopediac, and ahistorical come to mind, I have edited articles about people who did such things in Tasmania 100 and 130 years ago, - they are not on the list.- some of the claims in the article are open to question, as it attempts to make the Tasmanian component of Australia traversing as a separate subject - parts of this article should be salted into an Australian traversal article instead User:JarrahTree 10:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @JarrahTree: If the article is deleted, then parts of it won't be easily merged into an an Australian traversal article, as you suggest above. Regarding the title, the article has already been renamed to List of people who have walked across Tasmania. If the article is incomplete, it can be expanded by copy editing it. How does this article not meet notability guidelines? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - it is a soapbox article if you didnt realise, it is not something real in the historical or contextual sense, it can be easily incorporated into an Australian traversal article, there is nothing completable about it - there have been 1,000s of people in the strictest sense who have done more than what this article claims, it is not notable as it simply is people who have actively sought publicity about walking on roads around the island, nothing to do with really walking across the island. I would seriously consider it a hoax article with its current title as it has no idea of the island or its geography. Keep argument really has been taken into the crap about self promotion, you should consider what a con you have been caught up with. The title is so wrong it is unbelievable in the sense of Tasmania and its history, it should be salted into Australian traversal and got rid of as soon as possible, it is embarrassing to anyone like myself who has both lived and walked parts of Tasmania User:JarrahTree 23:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The nomination is quite subjective and based upon personal opinion, rather than the depth of coverage in reliable sources, and I wholly disagree with the notion of the topic being "of local interest only". Defining an island state as "local" is problematic from the start. Per WP:EVENTCRIT, the overall topic has an enduring historical significance as evidenced per ongoing coverage in reliable sources, and the topic has been widely covered in diverse sources. Also, subjects in the list appear to be notable for one event per WP:BLP1E. Regarding such articles, WP:LISTPEOPLE, (part of the Manual of Style for stand-alone lists) states (underline emphasis mine):

“

A person is typically included in a list of people only if all the following requirements are met:

The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement.
The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources.

There are some common exceptions to the typical notability requirement:

If the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to: a) establish their membership in the list's group; and b) to establish their notability on either BLP1E or BIO1E.

”

Furthermore, per WP:BIO1E (underline emphasis mine):

“

The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.

”

Essentially, this qualifies as a stand-alone article per WP:EVENTCRIT, as well as the rest of all the above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Northamerica1000. Having a deletion rationale based on "of local interest only" is not a valid reason for deletion and a very, very poor argument. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:-I would have to agree with Northamerica1000, they buttress the point I was about to make on this. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-name if this is not going to be deleted, as the comments are apparently ignoring the historical and contextual issues - suggested re-name is People who have included Tasmania in Australian traversals would be far more in line with a keep than the current title which is so unencyclopediac it makes one wonder JarrahTree 01:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The applicable notability guideline that nobody has brought up is WP:NOTESAL, which would require substantial RS coverage of people who have walked across Tasmania as a group or set, not just of individual walkers. I don't see any such coverage. Toohool (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a 200 mile walk is nice but doesn't really rate an entry. Else we would have people who hiked the Appalachian Trail or completed the HURT 100. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2015 (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.