Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long Beach 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. Weak consensus to merge but no consensus for a target (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Long Beach bicycle path

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

This is a procedural relist of a bundled AfD (see here for previous discussion). The original rationale (by User:JamesBurns) stated: "Wikipedia is neither a travelguide WP:NOTTRAVEL, nor a how-to manual WP:NOTMANUAL. Articles fail to establish why these paths are particularly notable. Some of the content in these also reads like opinion pieces, eg. "The Western Balboa section is frequented by soccer players and observers, which can make cycling tedious.", "The entire path is on the beach, affording beautiful views, mixed with the hazard of beachgoing pedestrians who do not respect the boundaries of the path." Tavix (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Major and notable bike route. Even if it wasnt' independently notable it could be merged. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge I think there may not really be independent notability here, and a merge with the other bike trails may be a better way to deal with these articles. 05:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Is the very in-depth subject of reliable independent sources. --Oakshade (talk) 06:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Article fails to establish why it is notable. JamesBurns (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: ChildofM, if you can save this, go ahead--I couldn't find anything that suggested notability, but I'm willing to be directed. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources, and my googling suggests that there isn't even a unique trail with this name, but rather several Long beach bicycle trails. Looie496 (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a 4 mile bike path that runs along the beach where Long Beach meets the Pacific Ocean. I would say it's notable, but indeed there isn't a lot of news coverage of it. Seems a pity to lose it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A 4-mile bike path along the ocean is definitely notable in my opinion, assuming it's paved, but I'm surprised not to find more coverage. Here in the Bay Area I have no trouble finding net descriptions of bike paths that are a lot less interesting. Looie496 (talk) 05:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strange indeed. Here's a video of it if that helps . LA, and Long Beach in particular, isn't S.F. I guess. Sad to think there's such a substantial amenity and it doesn't get covered more.  It also points out the limitations of google news searches. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge any worthy content to an article about the place where it is per WP:LOCAL, or if there's a general outdoor-recreation or similar article for that region. One sentence in Long Beach, California and/or a sentence or two in Belmont Shore, Long Beach, California stating that this trail is a popular ped/bike/whatever path would cover it. I agree with nom and others that the content that is there is mostly not up to encyc standards, so there's not really anything much to merge beyond facts of its existence. Doesn't seem notable and doesn't seem likely to become notable or be able to be expanded into an actual article. DMacks (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2009 (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.