Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Strand (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, though it appears a substantial rewrite is needed. WjBscribe 08:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Strand (bicycle path)

This page is nothing but Original Research, very unencyclopedic — does not belong in WikiP. Sources were requested five months ago. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is arguably the most notable and highly visible bike/skate path in the world. Hugging the beaches from Santa Monica and through Venice Beach (the bike path in the photo in that Venice article is this bike path), it is one of the most used, photographed and filmed bike paths ever. In all hundreds (thousands?) of films and television shows that show cyclists or skaters riding along Santa Monica or Venice beaches, they're on this bike path. In the opening titles to most Three's Company episodes, you're looking at this bike bath that Jack Tripper so clumsily fell off is bike on while looking at a girl (see it here).. For those that are sticklers for the "is the subject of secondary sources" routine, it's been written about in the Los Angeles Times, [1] [2]. See many more articles that there's more than a "passing mention" about this topic here. Unencyclopedic writing of a notable topic is a reason for re-writing, not deleting. I would advise the nom that when they see an article that needs improving, they improve it instead of nominating it for deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete, as I said at the outset. This article reads like an instruction manual or a travel guide (WP:NOT#MANUAL). If not deleted, the article will have to have some encyclopedic content like that reported by Oakshade. Certainly anybody who wants to retain the valuable information it contains (and there have been many editors since last August) should be able to find some sources. The tips on feeding the parking meter and walking your bike are POV unless they are sourced somewhere. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are only reasons to re-write the article, not delete it. --Oakshade (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the original author, or one of the many editors, should have taken care of that. I would be willing to hold off on the Deletion provided some progress is made toward finding sources for all these statements or in rewriting it to encyclopedic standards. Still, there is a limit since WP protocol allows unsourced challenged material to be deleted at any time. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you are the nominator, be careful to not look like you're voting twice. I would suggest changing to "delete, as nom." --Oakshade (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but it is gospel that this discussion is not "voting." It is a discussion. Nobody would know what "as nom." means. Or, anyway, I wouldn't. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody with Wikipedia experience knows what "delete as nom" means. You're giving the appearance of two votes even though you're one person. --Oakshade (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite in an encyclopedic tone. Midtown Greenway (minus the stuff about the railroad history) and Bruce Vento Regional Trail could serve as examples that are reasonably encyclopedic but that don't go into travel guides. (As an aside, the original version of Bruce Vento Regional Trail was a travel guide, and also a very obvious copyright violation from a site I maintain.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with cleanup. Reliable sources exist to establish notability per Oakshade. But the article could do with some heavy duty editting -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2008 (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.