Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arroyo Seco bicycle path

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. Or "nomination withdrawn". Note that this does not preclude a merger discussion on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arroyo Seco bicycle path

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

This article exists since 2005, and has only seen minor changes since. It is about a bicycle path that probably exists, but is in my opinion not notable at all. It has no references, and only one external link, but the relevance to the article is marginal. Google finds 12 results, all of them copies of wikipedia or meaningless lists of words. (There are many articles like that on bicycle paths, and I would like to know what the AfD-process thinks of them, and I chose this as an example. Still, this is not a group nomination, and whatever happens to this article will not affect the other articles directly, only my view on what should happen to them.) EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An article not having many edits in a long time is not proper grounds to delete it. This does have significant coverage [1]. Its historic incarnation even has significant coverage in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.[2] In fact, coverage of an Arryoyo Seco bicycle path dates back to the 1800s as one of the worlds first bicycle paths. [3][4] That bicycle path was the foundation of the Pasadena Freeway [5], one of the first freeways in the world. Much more multi-paged coverage of that historic bike path from that source here.
As for the nom's considering of putting up many bicycle articles up for AfD, there actually have been several Los Angeles area bicycle path articles AfDs, most by one user, and all have ended in "KEEP." - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rio Hondo bicycle path,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Ana River bicycle path,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Clara River Trail --Oakshade (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know about the other AfD's, thank you for showing them!--EdgeNavidad (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC) I see that I even commented in one of them, so I should have been aware of them...--EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is possible, I would like to add the option "combine into List of Los Angeles bike paths, and rename to Bike paths in Los Angeles". Your sources show that the path received coverage, so deletion is perhaps not needed, but perhaps the information is presented better together with the other bike paths in one article.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The results of all the bicycle path article AfDs were "KEEP," not "Merge". If merging is what the editors would've wanted, they would've indicated so.--Oakshade (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I second EdgeNavidad's suggestion to merge all the bike paths into a single article called Bike paths in Los Angeles. I have a big problem with this article because it is written like a travel guide. WP:NOTTRAVEL The same is true or most or all of the other bike path articles, which were written using the same template. I'd like to strip out the how-to stuff, add the historical information provided by Oakshade, transfer what's left to a combined article, and redirect from Arroyo Seco bicycle path. --MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is far too much topic-specific content in all these articles to be merged into on (look at the info in Santa Ana River bicycle path and The Strand (bicycle path) alone). WP:NOTTRAVEL is meant to eliminate frivolous travel related content, ie Southwest Airlines Phoenix to Las Vegas flight timetable on Sundays, not valid content like route descriptions on road and bicycle path articles.--Oakshade (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, Oakshade gave enough reasons to keep the article. The article is notable (I found only 12 references by searching for "Arroyo Seco bicycle path", but now I know that plenty can be found by searching for "Arroyo Seco"+"bicycle path"). If I find the time, I will strip out the how-to stuff and other stuff that should not be in the article, so the article becomes a "decent stub". I doubt if anybody will ever turn the article into something better, but I know that this is irrelevant for this discussion.

As the initial proposer, I will not try to see if I can close this AfD. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the result is "keep" I will take that as a decision that bikeways are entitled to have an article after all. My inclination has been that they mostly don't deserve one. There are several bikeways in San Diego that I have a problem with (too much travelogue, too much how-to), and the discussion page was leaning toward delete. But if the consensus here is to keep such articles, rather than propose them for deletion I will try to improve them, weed out the inappropriate stuff and maybe find a reference or two. --MelanieN (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been successful deletion processes of bikeways in the past, Culver City Median bicycle path, Hermosa Valley Green Belt path and Watts Towers Crescent Greenway, all created by the same author as this article.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 06:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that information. So I guess it has to be done on a case-by-case basis - after a reasonably thorough search for outside sources. Some are notable, some are not - and the ones that are notable need to be brought into line with Wikipedia standards. --MelanieN (talk) 15:05, 12 February 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.