Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canley way


 * 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   delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Canley way

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is currently little but promotion, and since the path does not yet seem to exist there is little evidence of it being notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I considered a merge into Canley, but have checked the sources this appears to be an unofficial path set up by a local group. That doesn't automatically make the path non-notable, but when the coverage in reliable sources amounts to two sentences in two articles it's a long way from being notable. Should this path be covered in reliable sources once it's adopted, we can look at this again. Good luck anyway. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete -- The current coverage does not pass WP:GNG. There is also an element of WP:CRYSTAL, but better coverage would overcome it. That is not to say this won't pass WP:GNG in the future. More detailed coverage in newspapers after it opens, or coverage in a travel or geography book at that point, would most definitely pass it. This might be a case of WP:NotJustYet. Hoppingalong (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.