Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Trail


 * 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. A Google search shows up no extensive coverage. The matter here isn't whether the trail exists, whether it is maintained well, or where you can download files about it; rather, we need to establish how the trail is notable. A Christian newspaper covering a Christian topic isn't really an objective source. The other source only makes a mention that can at best be described as advertising, and doesn't give us much to go on. Per that reasoning, I'm closing this as a delete. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :)  05:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Trail

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article failed a prod, which stated: ''Article used to promote a recent marketing venture. No sources cited, not likely to find independent sources. Notability not explained''. Currently there are two independent sources cited: haaretz.com and CatholicNews.com (I'm ignoring the travel blog because blogs are generally not reliable sources, plus it doesn't mention "Jesus Trail" once). It is not clear to me that either of these sources is not Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site. (from WP:WEB). The phrase "Jesus Trail" gets a relatively low google hit (7,540 without taking into consideration that many of these links are not referring to the topic of this article). Alexa ranking is 8,664,269. Notability is not clear to me, and the indepenent media coverage is questionable (would be nice if we had more, or more solid sourcing). Also concerning, but not necessarily a reason to delete is that User:Dplandis has a very similar name to one of the founders of Jesus Trail. Also, the majority of the editors seem to be single-purpose accounts which have been spamming the external link to Jesus Trail throughout multiple unrelated articles. This article seems to serve the purpose of advertising a recent entrepreneurial venture, not encyclopedic coverage of a notable topic. But it is not cut and dry, which is why the community's input is important here. What do others think about this article? Andrew c [talk] 15:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * KeepInteresting question. There is no doubt that this page is put up to promote a toruism enterprise. On the other hand,  I read the Catholic News and  Haaretz newspaper accounts.  Ths Catholic News story is written by an actual journalist, a Jerusalem-based freelancer (she googles, )and reading it I can see no doubt that it is a real news story.    The Haaretz accoount certainly is.  Haaretz is a major daily, not some small-town paper tht runs press releases.  This is a real feature story in a real newspaper.  So we have a brand-new tourism enterprise with exactly two outside sources.   Stop.  I just checked the Jesus Trail's web page, and there is more covereage.  The Catholic News story was picked up by many of the large American Catholic weeklies.  and there has been a smattering of other stories.  .  So, there is no doubt that this trail was created to encourage tourism and to bring people to Israel and to make them like Israel or whatever.  So were the Freedonm Trail and the Black Heritage Trail.  The only grounds for disqualifying the Jesus Trail would be that it is brand new. If the editors are behaving bad.y, give them a warning.  but their behavior does not affect the merit of the articleElan26 (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Elan
 * Keep as the article is adequately sourced, but contributors should be warned for conflict editing. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess I just have a different standard for adequate sourcing. Imagine ten years ago, a new restaurant opens up in Cincinnati. Let's say that the local, yet notable newspaper The Cincinnati Enquirer does a story and review about the opening of this new restaurant. Let's also say that a national trade journal Restaurants & Institutions has a short, but seemingly significant one-page about the restaurant. Is this enough to warrant a wikipedia article? What if the restaurant hasn't been mentioned in ten years? What if it went out of business in the first year? Wikipedia is not a new source, and for entrepreneurial ventures that are still new, with out any real claim to fame (or in this case, notability), and only these two publications covering the topic, I feel that we shouldn't have an article on the topic. The criteria says "multiple independent reliable sources". Two is at a very bare minimum of "multiple", and WP:N goes on to say these independent sources work to establish a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. In this case, we have two examples of media coverage, but I am arguing that that is not enough and the article is still not suitable for inclusion. But there are things that could be worked on to improve the article, and perhaps bring it up to standards. More sourcing would be good, and at the very least, a sourced explanation of the significance or importance of the topic.-Andrew c [talk] 22:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I googled : ("Jesus Trail" hiking Galilee) and I do see your point.  This is a renaming of sections of existing trail for toruism promotion purposes.  A number of Christian hikers and groups have used the trail and there is some enthusiasm.  On the other hand, only two news articles, so there is real question about whether the name will actually catch on.  I am now less supportive.  though I can see the appeal of a trail that goes through : Nazareth, and passes through Sepphoris, Cana, the Horns of Hattin, the Arbel Cliffs, the Sea of Galilee, Capernaum, Tabgha, the Mount of Beatitudes, the Jordan River and Mount Tabor.I really don't know.Elan26 (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Elan
 * Andrew, the radio interview on a Christian network - a recording is linked form the site - makes a third reliable media source.  Taking that into consideration along with the number of Catholic weeklies that printed the article, plus the number of blogs and web pages that have written it up, and  I really think we do have notability.  This trail is new, but it has already drawn enough attention that I think taking the page down would be a poor decision. Elan26 (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26


 * Keep I am new to the principles of editing wikipedia and discussing it, but perhaps I can share a first-hand experience from being on the trail that might help. I arrived in Nazareth one week ago, having found information about the trail through free non-profit networking sites such as facebook and later wikipedia.  the trail and its site is purely informational and a collaborative effort, integrating into free-source systems out there such as Google Maps and GPS.  KMZ files of the trail are free for download off the site, as well as information on campsites, where to find water, historical and religious points of interest, etc.  When I took my GPS out on the land, the path was an unique trek across many surfaces, old roman road, trails, highway, farm fields, etc.  it was a very real way to experience the land, history, and culture, and people.  My guess is that the editors of the Jesus Trail article are branching out into Wikipedia for the sake of sharing the knowledge of hiking and trekking, a common theme among outdoor adventurists and hikers.  the trail and it's information is public and collaborative not commercial, which is why I think it should not be deleted.Indoordusk (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia requires that articles be about subjects that have been written about in the media. Two articles in major places may be enough  Haaretz is a major national daily and the Catholic News Service article was picked up by a lot of newspapers.  If articles were to appear in hiking or Christian publications, let alone in other major sources like the two tht are there already, the decision would be simple.Elan26 (talk)Elan26  —Preceding comment was added at 12:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * another article was recently published by KNA.Indoordusk (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Indoordusk, I think you misunderstand the purpose of wikipedia. Wikipedia is not here for free advertising, or to serve the same purpose as facebook. It doesn't matter if the venture is "not commercial". Spam is spam. Please do not use wikipedia to promote things you like (or may be affiliated with). Your rationale for inclusion does not adhere to any known wikipedia policy or guideline. -Andrew c [talk] 15:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All true. And there is no doubt but that the promoters of this trail appear to have been logging on under multiple names to, well, promote the trail. Of course, the directors and backers of small historical sites, small museums, small documentary movies and so forth do this all the time.  And we let people who are running such outfits do so as long as the things they are promoting are real and notable.  I this case, despite their bad Wiki-manners, the promoters have put up a reasonably good site promoting something that isreal, a real hiking trail that links the real towns where Jesus lived and taught and that has gotten real attention form real, major news outlets.  I think that it would be wrong to take the page down merely because some of us are annoyed at them for using Wikipedia for prormting a project that they are committed to.Elan26 (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete A recent event with little coverage. The article could be recreated in the future if it recieves more news stories. Bhaktivinode (talk) 13:40, 22 May 2008 (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.