Deletion of Dartmoor Discovery

Comment: Why does a strategy determine whether this meets notability requirements? I had proposed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Namibian_ultra_marathon|this deletion as well and looked at other ultramarathons, came across this, and proposed this. If I had more time, I would/could go through and nominate others, as you noted. In terms of "doing no research", if you look online for it, it's mostly covered on its own site, rare and occasional news sources, and local race tracking websites. This doesn't meet  and doesn't meet 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NTRACK)

Comment: A simple  would have avoided this AfD, it is reported on eery single year, for all of its twenty year history, http://www.tavistock-today.co.uk/article.cfm?id=420824&headline=Tavistock%20runners%20give%20it%20their%20all%20in%20gruelling%20Dartmoor%20Discovery%2032%2Dmiler&sectionIs=sport&searchyear=2017 etc and is close (5 years off) being inherently notable under . AfD is not cleanup so the lack of "''indication of significance''" is not an issue. I will also note that some journalist from forbes runs it annually and has included it in some articles, https://www.forbes.com/sites/andyrobertson/2016/07/04/ultra-run-tech/#13cecdc64544 https://www.forbes.com/sites/andyrobertson/2015/12/22/7-things-running-4000km-taught-me-this-year/#767df16123d3 https://www.forbes.com/sites/andyrobertson/2017/06/14/strava-app-directory-uncovers-innovative-exercise-data-tools
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:NTRACK)

Comment: It's just that I've got an aversion to those who go around putting hatnotes in everywhere without doing any work themselves. You're happy to quote  now that someone else has found it. How do you know it doesn't meet , surely that what we're here to find out
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTRACK||WP:GNG)