Talk:LetsRun.com

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 15 March 2022 by reviewer Star Mississippi (talk · contribs).

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Athletics Low‑importance

	Sport of athletics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Athletics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the sport of athletics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and join the discussion.AthleticsWikipedia:WikiProject AthleticsTemplate:WikiProject AthleticsAthletics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Need an opinion

Dear Timtrent, need your opinion on the notability of this entity. Kindly help. -Hatchens (talk) 05:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hatchens I see borderline notability from the references given, which are based strongly around controversies which are about other people, but we require something different.

We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

I think you need to perform a WP:BEFORE with a view either to strengthening the article with excellence of referencing about the organisation itself, or to suggesting to the community that it needs to make an inclusion decision. at WP:AFD. The search for references is essential. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hatchens: Note that this does not invalidate Star Mississippi's acceptance since the guideline is that the accepting reviewer believes that a draft has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. It is obvious that they believed this, and equally obvious from my opinion that it is borderline that I would potentially have reached a similar conclusion. There are cases where only the community can decide. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Timtrent for flagging and @Hatchensfor raising.

I actually "accepted" this in the sense of cleaning up the AfC tags after @Fiwec81618 moved it without accepting. That said, I'm familiar with the site and coverage it has received, and it seemed process wonkery to send it back to draft because it hadn't officially been approved when if I'd seen it in the queue, I would lilely have approved it personally.

LetsRun will face the usual issues of any media site (using the term loosely, but they do publish bylined content) where most is generated by them, but they've been covered in Outside Magazine, thin highlight of the roles of their forums, info on their impact. It's not an absolute GNG pass, but it's one where you could make a legit case for keep in an AfD vote which is my personal AfC barometer. My broader concern is their notable for the controversies they stir up (see Outside Magazine in the article), but as far as I'm aware there's no BLP1E type criteria for organizations. If someone wants to move it back, I wouldn't contest it, but would likely vote keep at an AfD. Star Mississippi 13:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for the discussion. I am not experienced with the mechanics of creating an article so I moved the page to the article space as in the diff linked above once I thought it was ready, trying to follow what was written at WP:DRAFT. I apologize if I made a mistake in the process and thankful that these and related issues are being addressed.

As for the content, I did carefully review the notability guidelines at WP:WEBCRIT while drafting the article and it appears to me that the available sources are sufficient to justify having an article on this website. Outside magazine articles including the one linked by Star Mississippi as well as this one, plus one from the (now-defunct) magazine Marathon & Beyond all appear to be independent, secondary sources in which LetsRun.com is the main focus. The pdf of the Marathon & Beyond article is hosted on LetsRun.com, but it is possible to verify from the table of contents of that issue here that the page numbers correspond. Each fact described on the page has also been sourced to a secondary source; the one place where LetsRun.com is itself cited, this is really just to provide the actual article which the secondary source cited (Outside magazine) describes. Fiwec81618 (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Fiwec81618. You didn't do anything wrong in moving it, but when it has AfC headers it needs additional clean up when it's moved, which is what I took care of and so it called me the reviewer. this article, which I can't access, seems to talk about the role of the LetsRun forums in shoe studies. Not sure if it's anything worth adding, but it's my personal opinion as a runner that their forums do good amid the drama they seem to generate. Star Mississippi 15:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Star Mississippi thank you for your assessment (with reasons) and I would like to apologize if I had offended you by any mean. From time to time, I seek second opinions from Timtrent and other senior editors during NPP reviewing activities because I want to learn and at the same time avoid creating unwanted/undesired situations. After my last ANI, I'm extremely cautious about what to review, and how to review. Believe me there is no intention to question your decision here or anywhere else. -Hatchens (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I wasn't offended at all. I also occasionally ping Timtrent, Robert McCutcheon, Primefac and others when I'm out of my depth as far as AfCs. So many of them are judgement calls once we're not dealing with the obvious pass/fails. I personally think it would be kept at AfD, but it wouldn't be a bad faith nomination if you see it differently. Discussing here/there/anywhere makes all of our lives much easier. Have a great day. Star Mississippi 13:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your understanding. As far as AfD nomination is concerned, I'll prefer to stick with your decision - whatever it might be. - Hatchens (talk) 04:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]