Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelby Farms Greenline


 * 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   merge to Shelby Farms.  MBisanz  talk 00:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Shelby Farms Greenline

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Insufficient claim of notability. No third party references support notability. Contested prod. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Understand entirely where the nom is coming from. I agree there are no sources now but a few exist. I question whether they are enough (quality, quantity and geographic scope) to be considered enough to pass WP:GNG but thought it would be worth "putting them on the table" for people to consider...


 * This article from The Commercial Appeal about the second birthday of the Greenline.
 * This editorial and this article, both from the same paper as the above.
 * This article and this one; both include passing mentions but they do verify claims in the article.
 * This entry from the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy.
 * This site which is obviously not independent but could serve to verify some of the claims in the article.


 * Would be interested in what others can find. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Shelby Farms. I don't see a lot of coverage about the trail beyond some local papers.  As Shelby Farms is a terminus of the trail and both are the trail and park are operated by the same organisation, a merge seems to be the best option. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Shelby Farms. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Shelby Farms. Not notable enough to justify a stand alone article. Vacation9 (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2012 (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.