Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Ana River 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Santa Ana River 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) 20:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Just a quick search brought up in depth secondary sources and an apparently the government agency Orange County Flood Control District published an entire book about it. --Oakshade (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Oakshade. This one does seem to have independent honest-to-gosh notability. (sorry about the strong language) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficiently notable, with adequate sources. Many major recreation facilitates will qualify for Wikipedia articled. DGG (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: It's a copyright violation from the book Bicycle Rides: Orange County by Don Brundige & Sharron Brundige, published 2000. Tavix removed the copyvio template for some reason. It was listed here back on 26 March. . JamesBurns (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've restored the template. JamesBurns (talk) 08:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what happened. For some reason, the template wasn't showing on my computer and I accidentally removed it with the other AfD template. Sorry about that. Tavix (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete on copyvio. The copyvio tag pretty much blanks out the article. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 03:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete on copyvio. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 11:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the article is rewritten and notability is shown with references --EdgeNavidad (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Copyvio is no longer a concern, as the text that existed has been replaced with a completely rewritten and newly researched version. While I had intended to do so only so that the subject could be judged on its own merits and did not plan to express an opinion here, I found enough information during the process to convince me that this trail may be of sufficient notability. Many of the news hits I found are subscription only and so not accessible to me, but I feel that what I found is sufficient that an article is beneficial, with the hope that interested editors with better access can expand it. (Hopefully, sans copyvio!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:50, 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.