Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long Beach bicycle path (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The sole keep argument, while passionately argued, appears to have been refuted.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Long Beach bicycle path
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No location by this name exists, there are no citations on the page, it reads like a blog post Rednikki (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

This page is not factually accurate. There is no Class I bike path of this name with this length in Long Beach, California. There are no citations on this page. It reads like a blog entry logging personal experiences rather than a Wikipedia article. The only way to make this page factually accurate would be to change the name and nearly all of the text, in order to convert it into a page about the Shoreline Pedestrian Bikepath. It would make more sense to build a page on the actually-existing Shoreline Pedestrian Bikepath and delete this one.Rednikki (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am currently working on cleaning up the List of Los Angeles bike paths article and sub-articles, which is how I came across this one. Rednikki (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 28.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  22:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  23:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  23:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable.  Rcsprinter  (chatter)  @ 23:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  23:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, it's written more like blog & isn't factually accurate. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  23:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete due to no sources. I would prefer to delete the whole group of articles on bike paths since I am sure "not a directory" also means "not a road atlas."   An article on LA County bike paths would be great.  With a link to a primary website giving the kind of practical details given in this article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am actually working on such an article, but unfortunately LA County's bike paths are overseen by many government agency so there is no one primary website to link to. Until I finish the page, that is.Rednikki (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect to Long Beach, California; subject has received a passing mention in a non-primary reliable source, however the subject of this AfD does not appear to have received significant coverage and thus does not pass WP:GNG. That being said, the subject maybe a local interest as shown by the plethera of non-reliable source information available, so an alternative to outright deletion is following WP:LOCAL and redirecting the article to an appropriate target.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 20:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:PERNOM isn't a good enough rationale, Tell us why.... →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  20:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * To be honest, WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:PERNOM are used quite often in AfDs. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ...Usually followed by a reason, IMO simply saying PerNom/NN & nothing else doesn't -


 * reason a warrant for it being deleted →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  23:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I am in agreement this is a textbook case of WP:LOCAL. Furthermore it appears this path has not received large amounts of widespread coverage in reliable and independent sources making it fall short of GNG. Mkdw talk 07:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Surprised at all the deletes here. It has received very in-depth coverage easily passing WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - The basis for this nomination is almost entirely factually inaccurate. Despite what the nom claims, reliable sources stipulate there is in fact a "Long Beach Bike Path" and sources have written extensively on it.  Unfortunately it seems the participants in this AfD took the nom's stipulation at face value and voted accordingly.  As sources were provided late in this AfD, this might have to go to DRV.--Oakshade (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I still feel that it's a stretch to suggest that one short news story and a local guide book qualify as "significant coverage" when it comes to GNG. In fact, I would say the fact that you were only able to find two local sources suggest that this does not closely meet GNG. Mkdw talk 06:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * According to the City of Long Beach, there is no "Long Beach bike path." The article cited from the LA Times is from 1986, and things have changed in Long Beach since then. The Wikipedia article references components of the Shoreline Bike Path but seems to also reference bits of the San Gabriel River bike path. The references do not make it any more accurate. Rednikki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In researching the second source, the guidebook appears to be referring to a different bike path than the Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article says the bike path is 4.2 miles long; the source says it is 6 miles long. The bike path it shows on the map is called Shoreline Bike Path. I appreciate Oakshade's desire to keep the page, but if it's going to be kept it needs to be renamed and massively improved.Rednikki (talk) 07:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The City of Long Beach refers to a section of the Long Beach which it entitles "Shoreline Bike Path" in the Shoreline Village area. The sources refer to the entire bike path as the "Long Beach Bike Path".  (There's no reason what the City of Long Beach is the only definitive source that negates all other sources).  I would advise "Shoreline Bike Path" have a re-direct to this article. --Oakshade (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The LA Times article you cited never names the bike path (it calls it "a $1.4-million bicycle path that will span the Long Beach oceanfront" but never cites a name), but the route description is specific to the Shoreline Pedestrian Bike Path. The bicycle path in the LA Times article is described as running "along the ocean from Alamitos Avenue to 54th Place in Belmont Shore." That is the precise description of the Shoreline Bicycle Path as laid out on the City of Long Beach website. It's also called the Shoreline Pedestrian Bikepath on Yelp and on TripAdvisor. The Los Angeles Times has mentioned that there are two bicycle paths along this route but did not find either notable enough to mention by name. Since the City of Long Beach maintains the class I bicycle paths in the city, the name they give would arguably be the definitive name, and as shown by Yelp and TripAdvisor it's also the commonly used colloquial name. Only one description you've given mentions a "Long Beach Bicycle Path" and that's "A Guide to Great Road Bike Rides," which then states that the route it describes covers multiple bicycle paths ("This ride is confined to the bicycle paths in Long Beach..."). Interestingly, it does not name the bicycle paths in question, perhaps because it does not consider them notable enough to name. Rednikki (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * While I don't think the Shoreline Pedestrian Bikepath is notable enough to merit its own page, I do think that, especially given the historical article and information you cited, it is worthy of incorporating into the Long Beach, California page. Rednikki (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per sources and article improvement via Oakshade. WP:GNG is met. WP:HEY. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Relist rationale:Most opinions were given before sources were found and the page worked on.


 * Weak delete: This bike path seems to have some type of local coverage, perhaps more than other bike paths in the state, but in this case WP:LOCAL conflicts with WP:GNG, which alone should not be used to determine notability being that it states presumes, not always. Therefore, more sources outside of Long Beach are needed for me to vote a firm keep. Also, List of Los Angeles bike paths does not have an entry for this path, so merging is not out of the question here, which was also suggested in the first AfD in 2009. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I nominated this for deletion about 4 years ago procedurally to unbundle a group AfD. I went back and looked at a few of the articles that were in the bundled AfD and of the tenish articles, 3 of them have since been deleted and the other ones are not in good shape. There really isn't anything here that is notable enough to warrant it's own article. It seems like the "bike path" is just part of the beach. Nothing special or noteworthy about it. Tavix | Talk  06:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Los Angeles bike paths. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:18, 15 May 2013 (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.