Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sepulveda Dam 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 unbundle and relist as this was a poorly bundled AfD and it would be impossible to reach consensus from this. Tavix (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sepulveda Dam bicycle path

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

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.") JamesBurns (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages as per above.:

JamesBurns (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Warning to editors - the link labikepaths.com which appears on a number of these articles is generating virus warning messages from Google and my anti-virus software. JamesBurns (talk) 06:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably the best fix is to remove the links. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 04:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete all but NOT the West Los Angeles Veloway, which seems notable enough, and the California Aqueduct bikeway, also notable, and the Rio Hondo bicycle path, also notable, and the Santa Monica bicycle path, also notable, and the Santa Clara River Trail, which seems highly notable, and the Santa Ana River bicycle path, also notable. Pfff. If this was an awkward sentence, that's what you get with a mass nomination. Note: some of these appear to me to be very notable, with notability easily established via Google News, esp. with articles from the LA Times. Maybe nom. did not look too carefully at all these articles; no doubt all of them need work, extensive work, but still, a lot of these should not be deleted. Drmies (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all. These are more for a travel wiki, or maybe a cyclist wiki.  They read like travel articles.  Not the most optimal. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 04:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: the formatting of some of the bigger articles looks like a cut and paste job from some travel guide ie. a copyright breach. I am currently following this up. JamesBurns (talk) 05:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close/Keep - This is crazy. This many articles in one AfD renders it impossible to research secondary sources in a limited amount of time and work on improving them per WP:HEY. Remember, we're volunteer editors with lives and jobs.  In a few minutes I was able to look up Santa Ana River bicycle path and already found secondary sources .  Apparently the government agency Orange County Flood Control District published a whole book about it..  The Sepulveda Dam bicycle path has secondary sources too, like an entire multi-paged book chapter about it..  The California Aqueduct bikeway has several in-dpeth secondary sources like from the Los Angeles Times  and the Modesto Bee and others.  We can't be expected to do such research and possible article improvements for 13 articles for one AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 05:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not sure what the notability standards are for roads/streets/highways or for public parks, but similar rules should be applied to these articles. The objections raised by the nominator appear to concern the contents of the articles rather than the notability of the paths. Some, such as the Santa Monica bike path, are major destinations in their own right.    Will Beback    talk    05:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The nom's comments only address content, not notability. The Santa Monica Bike Path article should be moved to the already-established The Strand (bicycle path) (the proper name) which ironically was kept in an AfD last year. --Oakshade (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia is not a place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel guides, culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet inclusion criteria, but Wikipedia does not list every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel, venue, etc." JamesBurns (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're referring to content, not notability. The sentence of WP:NOTTRAVEL that you're quoting is immediately preceded by "An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées."  The sources found above for some of the articles are not telephone numbers, address or prices of a café but in-depth chapters, articles or whole books about the topics.  There can be "tourist attractions" that pass WP:NOTABILITY.  Just because articles are currently badly written as travel guide-like doesn't negate the fact they might pass WP:NOTABILITY.  What you're referring to is a re-write of these articles.--Oakshade (talk) 05:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Oakshade comment. Some of these paths appear to be notable enough to be on Wikipedia. If the articles are written like a travel guide, they should be tagged with the "Unencyclopedic" template so as to give people a chance to improve them and/or to prove notability. It seems to me that some of these places are quite famous so I'm sure there is a potential for better articles. Laurent (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: because an article appears on wikipedia, doesn't mean it's automatically notable. JamesBurns (talk) 10:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not being clear - I should have said "Since they appear to be notable, they should be on Wikipedia". If they are not, I agree that they can be deleted. I would suggest to do the following:
 * check for the notability of individual articles and delete those that are not notable.
 * remove the author's opinion from the article (and possible copyrighted material).
 * tag the remaining articles as stubs.
 * Obviously, in order to do all that, we may need a bit more time than what an AFD would allow.
 * Laurent (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Copyright problem: The article Santa Ana River bicycle path appears to have been copied from the book Bicycle Rides. Orange County by Don Brundige & Sharron Brundige, published 2000. JamesBurns (talk) 09:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all - these are travel guides. Better suited to Wikitravel, than wikipedia. A-Kartoffel (talk) 10:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. A mass nomination like this one does not enable the creator or anyone else to give each article proper individual care and attention. These need to be evaluated on their own. Travel guide content can be taken care off by replacing it with a stub if enough sources can be found as per above. Florida Connector Bicycle Route may be relevant too. It turned out to be a copyright violation. - Mgm|(talk) 12:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're a terrible admin to get advice from MGM. Next time I will ask someone else for a second opinion, rather than yourself. You sat on my question for days, responding to others but ignoring my question. JamesBurns (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete only La Mirada (my hometown) and Yorba Linda as essentially blank articles with no prejudice toward re-creation when information is added. Stub the rest and flag for improvement. Subjects are notable but nom is correct that they currently read like a travel guide. However, they can be re-written in an encyclopedic tone. KuyaBriBri Talk 15:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note. My point above was indeed that the ones that are notable (and I only did a quick Google News search) should be reworked, sure--but copyvio issues can be addressed in editing, content can be adjusted in editing, etc. If an article is too much like a travel guide, then edit it so it becomes an encyclopedic article! Coverage in for instance the LA Times is a sure sign of notability, and no matter what the content is, an article on a notable topic is to be kept. I fully chime in with the criticism of this mass nomination--I don't have time, right now, or in the next four days, to work on all the ones that I believe should stay. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Frankly, I feel this is a terrible bundled AfD in which it would be hard to drive a consensus from. Personally, I think 3 of them should be deleted and the rest kept, while I noticed others only wanted one deleted or half of them, etc. I think the appropriate way to handle this would be close it as no consensus and relist a couple of them separately as needed. Tavix (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Which 3 do you think should be deleted? It makes it difficult to work out your comment otherwise. JamesBurns (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think La Miranda, Yorba Linda, and Lario should be deleted. Tavix (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  18:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  18:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment AfD should be unbundled and relisted. There are just too many here to do ponder in one response, and it's highly likely that some could be notable while others are not.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  18:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll go ahead and do that, I need to busy myself with something. Tavix (talk) 20:35, 29 March 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.