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 keep. Cirt (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oyster Run (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

There is only one substantive article about the Oyster Run, published in 2002 in the Seattle PI. Other than the claim as the largest motorcycle rally in the Pacific Northwest, the article does not give any reason to think this event is different from hundreds of other small scale motorcycle rallies around the country. I also found routine notices in The Seattle Times and The Herald (Everett) warning drivers of some increased traffic due to the Oyster Run. Most of the events in Category:Motorcycle rallies in the United States draw several tens to hundreds of thousands of people every year, not just 6 to 7 thousand 15 to 20 thousand (see below). Dbratland (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I found a couple other articles dealing with Oyster Run ([1] & [2]), but neither of these are substantive. Lack of significant coverage. Jujutacular ^T · C 05:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 05:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the article says ~20k ran it last year, not the 6-7k you mentioned, dbratland. I'm on the fence about this one, perhaps because it's one of the few I've actually heard about. tedder (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I was looking at the 2002 Seattle PI story; you're right the 2008 goskagit.com story [3] does say 15,000 to 20,000. I still think it lacks distinctiveness -- I would rather see a broader article that covers the entire phenomenon of second and third tier motorcycle rallies around the world, rather than focusing on one with little to distinguish it. But I could understand if there was support to keep it based on the size and being (perhaps) the largest in the Pacific Northwest region. --Dbratland (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Major event with thousands of participants every year that has been going on for more than two decades and has received very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A regular event that attracts so many people has to be sufficiently notable. Google News has enough to satisfy any concerns over coverage.--Michig (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. TLDR follows. It took me some time to decide on this- see my comment from a week ago (above). Here's the thing. This article isn't ever going to be a featured article- the number and depth of WP:RS's about it are minimal. So, at best, this is going to be a borderline case of notability. So, because there are only a handful of active folks in Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling, it's probably up to us to use our gut 'feel' of notability for this, since it isn't an obvious 'keep' or 'delete'. While most of the rallies that have come up for deletion recently are an obvious delete, this is one of the rallies that fits into a second tier behind the Daytona and Sturgis type rallies. There's enough coverage to give the entry the benefit of the doubt when it comes to notability- especially when the Oregon Department of Transportation puts up signboards related to the event about 365 miles south of the event itself. tedder (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2010 (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.