Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Wales Coast and Severn Estuary Coastal 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   no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

South Wales Coast and Severn Estuary Coastal Path

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The Wales Coast Path opened in May 2012, joining up various pieces of coastal walkway around the entire Wales coast. The "South Wales Coast and Severn Estuary Coastal Path" doesn't exist and has never existed as a distinct entity, but is simply a section of the Wales Coast Path (administered by a number of local authorities). As far as I can see the official Wales Coast Path website divides the coastal path into a series of maps, including one for the South Wales Coast & Severn Estuary, but in my view that is not the basis for a Wikipedia article. The given sources here that do mention a "South Wales Coast and Severn Estuary Coastal Path"  are certainly not official in any way as far as I can see. The vast bulk of this article is a cherry-picked travelogue describing the route and the sights, falling into What Wikipedia is not. There is only a small amount here that could possibly be merged into Wales Coast Path. Discussion about these path articles can be found at Talk:Wales Coast Path. Sionk (talk) 09:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page because it is a similarly poorly sourced travelogue about part of the Wales Coast Path:



Keep 1. This article does not contravene the What Wikipedia is not parameters. 'Route and the sights' are allowed in Wikipedia; please re-read the above 'What WP is not'. All paths on Wikipedia that I have read describe the 'route and the sights'. This can and should not be a reason for deleting this article. I object to the use of the word 'travelog' in this case as nothing in the article has any commercial or ephemeral connotations to them; or if there are Sionk hasn't given one example. 2. Sionk notes that there are external websites which DO refer to the existence of this path are external, neutral, secondary and reliable. That is a reason for keeping it. 3. Sionk mentions that there aren't any official websites which refer to the 'South Wales Coast and Severn Estuary Coastal Path'. The 'Official' keepers, owner and administrators of the path are: Natural Resources Wales, the local authorities, the Ramblers Cymru and the Welsh Government, all of which refer to the 'South Wales Coast and Severn Estuary Coastal Path' as I have referenced elsewhere. 4. The article is part of an on-going Wikipedia project (GLAM/Welcome to Llwybrau Byw! - Living Paths! and the articles on each and every path will be developed in the next 12 months. To delete this article now is to preempt that project's outcomes. 5. There are 8 geographical areas, which are acknowledge by all. No one (as far as I can see) disputes that, not even Sionk; the question is: what extent does each area merit being called a path? In my view it would be absurd to have only 6 out of the eight on Wikipedia, rejecting two because they are new, and maybe are not yet fully established or do not have a 'clever' name such as the 'Pembrokeshire Path'. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As you well know, a number of the sections have existed for many years as established coastal walks - The Pembrokeshire Coast Path that you've mentioned (not a good example for your argument), Ceredigion Coast Path and Anglesey Coastal Path, for example. Sionk (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - as well referenced passes WP:GNG. - →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  15:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, unfortunately. User:Sionk is right.  The only reliable source that refers to the "South Wales Coast and Severn Estuary Coastal Path" and the "Gower and Swansea Bay Coast Path", is the Wales Coast Path site itself.  The other two sites that mention it - http://www.walesdirectory.co.uk/ and http://www.wales-coastal-path.co.uk/ - are unofficial and/or commercial tourism sites which should not be used as references here.  Apart from those sites, none of the other citations in the article mention this path - they only refer to the Wales Coast Path as a whole.  None of the local authority sites in the six authorities covered by this article mention the "South Wales Coast and Severn Estuary" path.  Newport City Council, for instance, refers to the Newport section of the Wales Coast Path as the Newport Coast Path - no mention of the "South Wales Coast and Severn Estuary".  I'm sure that the GLAM/Welcome to Llwybrau Byw! - Living Paths! project is worthwhile in theory, but note that in the project proposal here reference is made to the possibility that: "The project may be poorly managed in terms of Wikipedia’s Conflict of Interest and Notability policies resulting in negative community attention. Our assessment is that this is unlikely; the project is likely to be delivered by experienced Wikimedians and the project leader... has shown considerable understanding of Wikimedia UK’s problems with Gibraltarpedia.  Since the project is part-funded by a grant from the Welsh Government’s Tourism department there could be a perception that the whole project is introducing commercial interests to Wikipedia.".  Unfortunately, what seems to have happened, doubtless in an excess of enthusiasm, is that these two articles have been created prematurely, before there is any indication in reliable external sources of the existence of the two paths as discrete encyclopedia-worthy entities.  The articles need to be deleted now, in particular to avert any suspicions that the project is motivated by the same commercial aims that led to the Gibraltarpedia controversy.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I don't think even the Wales Coast Path website calls them this. Though if they are financially linked to the Living Paths! Project it wouldn't surprise me if they change the wording again shortly. These sections are currently called Region G and Region H. Sionk (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Region G is called "Gower & Swansea Bay", and Region H is "South Wales Coast & Severn Estuary" - http://www.walescoastpath.gov.uk/plan_your_trip/static_maps.aspx. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes exactly, the Tourist Boadr website divides the path into regions. Sionk (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ...??  You're confusing me.  The Tourist Board site doesn't, but the Coast Path site does.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm confusing myself, sorry. Because of the .gov.uk extension I assumed it was connected to a Wales tourist initiative. Sionk (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that most of your arguments against these two paths have been rather confusing Sionk. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That is barely a whisker away from being a personal attack. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The Living Paths project has hardly begun, and it would be wrong to prejudice its development at this early stage. Hopefully it will grow to add much more information to Wikipedia. The description of the route is currently brief, but entirely factual; In no way would I describe it as a cherry-picking travelogue. The press pack which divides the path into 8 sections can be accessed via the web sites of Natural Resources Wales and their predecessor the Countryside Council as well as direct from the Coastal Path's web site.Lesbardd (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that a press pack is linked from different sites doesn't change the fact that it is the only source that refers to these stretches of the path in this way. What needs to be done here is to support WP policies on notability and verifiability; whether that affects a particular project is, I'm afraid, not really relevant.  The project should have established notability of the "South Wales Coast and Severn Estuary Coastal Path" before any article was created.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ghmyrtle - I'd say that you're pretty late in the day raising new and unsupported statements like these; these should have been voiced before raising an Article for Deletion discussion. Secondly, you have not presented any arguments as to notability or cited relevant List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates as is necessary. Please note that you should ' explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy' (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion - how to contribute). I have proved imho that the Carmarthenshire Coast Path is worthy of inclusion (as per Notability, general guideline	WP:GNG). The 'Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not' and your latest 'WP policies on notability and verifiability' policies, cited in favor of deletion, are not applicable (and certainly have not been proved); I have provided numerous sources here, and have made other changes to the article to address the issue. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolute nonsense. This is precisely the place where issues like this should be raised.  It's distressing that someone given authority by WMUK to develop this project seems to be so sadly unaware of WP policy.  Was I supposed, somehow, to guess that these articles existed, before I was made aware of them?  Don't be absurd.  I have explained, as has User:Sionk, why these two articles (not all the others) fail to meet standards of notability and verifiability - because only one reliable source - the Coast Path site itself, with its related press pack - refers to the two paths in the terms used in the articles.  The only other sites you have mentioned are not reliable ones - they are commercial tourist sites which derive their information directly from the WCP.  The paths themselves are notable as part of the Wales Coast Path, which has its own article - but what are not notable are those individual sections of the path which have been defined by the WCP for its own purposes.  They should not have separate articles.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to avoid any doubt, the articles in my view fail WP:CFORK (as unwarranted forks of Wales Coast Path), WP:NOTDIRECTORY (the article lists tangentially related visitor sites besides describing the path itself), WP:NOTGUIDE (obviously), WP:NRVE (no independent evidence of the existence of the paths using the article names has been provided), WP:PROMOTION (promoting both the WCP itself, and through their very existence as freestanding articles seeking to promote the "Living Paths" initiative), WP:NOTTRAVEL (obviously and blatantly)...  That'll do for the moment.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * NB I would have nominated Carmarthenshire Coast Path for deletion too, but because is is a section of the Wales Coast Path bordering only one county, it's alleged identity is more ambiguous. In my view there's no proof that path exists either, other than a part of the Wales Coast Path. As Ghmyrtle has pointed out, each county not unsurprisingly promotes their section of the Wales Coast Path (I visited Penarth today and the tourist noticeboard at the pier promotes the "Wales Coast Path - Vale of Glamorgan"). Sionk (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * See also Articles for deletion/Carmarthenshire Coast Path. Sionk (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per Ghmyrtle. Something is either notable or it isn't, and this isn't. What is notable is the Wales Coast Path. Andreas JN 466 08:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC) This !vote was canvassed by User:Ghmyrtle here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete and Merge anything useful into Wales Coast Path. I'm a keen walker (who recently completed the Anglesey Coast Path, with vague plans of walking other sections) and I watch a lot of walk articles, and have watched and edited some of the articles in question. To my mind, the paths that opened significantly before the Wales Coast Path was complete (e.g. Anglesey and Pembrokeshire) have separate identities and histories that warrant individual articles, but I don't think that applies to the sections that had no independent existence before the whole Coast Path opened in 2012; anyway, the Wales Coast Path article is not so enormous that these subarticles couldn't be converted into sections of that article. I'm a little concerned that, while I'm sympathetic to its aims, the Living Paths initiative might lead to contributions that would be better suited to Wikitravel (to which I also contribute) than Wikipedia. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Two out of three keepers are primarily editors on the Welsh Wikipedia. This isn't in and of itself a problem, but the Welsh and English policies are in general somewhat different, or at least interpreted differently (as I know from trying to invoke an English policy there), and users coming from over there might not see things the same way. I don't know if this is at all relevant to anything though. Cathfolant (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you explain in what ways they are different? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll try.
 * cy:Wicipedia:Anaddas ar gyfer Wicipedia seems to say mostly the same things as What Wikipedia is not. I interpreted this/these policies to say that lists of common phrases in a language were not appropriate, and I removed such a list from one article but was reverted by Llywelyn2000. I took this to the talk page, citing a clause in Anaddas ar gyfer Wicipedia that said Wikipedia was not a dictionary or handbook, a phrase that I think in the English does prohibit the content I removed, but Llywelyn disagreed, saying that the content was not in fact a dictionary or handbook entry and he didn't see a problem with it.
 * I could give another few examples but I think that's the most relevant here as it seems to point to a more inclusive tendency on cywiki than enwiki (I have seen similar 'common sayings' sections removed on enwiki) and a seemingly different interpretation of almost the same policy that is being cited here as an argument for keeping the articles or not. Again, I don't know how relevant this is to whether these articles actually should be kept or not. Cathfolant (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks - that's interesting. Anyway, this is en:wiki, so we should stick to its guidelines, not those adopted elsewhere.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename to something like Wales Coast Path in South Wales and Wales Coast Path in Gower. The path exists, but does not have its own separate identity.  Merging it (and related articles) to Wales Coastal Path would adversely affect tha balance of that article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * keep - or convert into articles for each of the unitary authorities (ie 15 articles instead of 8. Bridgend council, for example, is very actively writing about the 'Bridgend Coast Path'). There is definitely more to say on an 870 mile path than can be sensibly said in one article. It seems to be generally accepted that some of those parts warrant an article, so the question of how to provide a sensible and accessible structure for more detailed editing on the path is at least a reasonable one to ask. The alternative is to have mystifying gaps along the path. Is the objection that the article name is not notable, or that the subject is not notable? If the name is the problem, then have a constructive discussion at Wales Coast Path. There is no shortage of published information about the path along this stretch of coastline, and as some of it only opened a week ago, and much of it less than 18 months ago, it is reasonable to expect that more will be published - so I am puzzled by the rush to remove the opportunity for the article to improve. RobinLeicester (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Whatever people may think of coastal paths, Robin makes a very good point - reliable sources have written about this topic, and seem to be writing more about it. Regardless of whether some people don't like it, that's a fact. I would also like to see an explanation of the canvassing that occurred on this AfD, as noted above. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously, there are multiple sources about the Wales Coast Path (which, incidentally, is an excellent initiative). That's not the point (and nor is my support for the initiative).  The issue is whether individual sections of the path, defined solely by the path's organising body for promotional purposes, should have separate articles within the terms of English Wikipedia policy.  An interesting side issue is the funding relationship between the GLAM/Welcome to Llwybrau Byw! - Living Paths! project, of which this and similar articles form an integral part, and the Welsh Government's "Digital Tourism Framework Project", as confirmed in this WMUK report - "Since the project is part-funded by a grant from the Welsh Government’s Tourism department there could be a perception that the whole project is introducing commercial interests to Wikipedia.".  The relationship between Government-funded tourism initiatives, and the development of Wikipedia articles apparently with no purpose other than in support of such initiatives, created all sorts of problems for the Gibraltarpedia project, and I would not want to see similar problems arising in Wales.  Hence, it's important that the issues are clarified at an early stage.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Where are the reliable sources? There aren't any, other than the Wales Coast Path website (a primary source). Much of the rest of the article is sourced to general information about the Wales Coast Path, or (in the example of the diversion around the River Kenfig) RobinLeicester looking at a map. Completely bizarre that experienced editors are suspending all basic Wikipedia guidelines with these two articles. Sionk (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * About canvassing, I don't mean to attack Llywelyn or anything but I'm not sure if this section on the Welsh village pump could be classed as canvassing or not; it seems to be an appeal to the Welsh community to come look at the debate (a few words I can't read unfortunately). I'm not questioning that it was good faith though. Cathfolant (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Did I put this comment in the wrong place? Cathfolant (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe. It wasn't a comment in direct response to Demiurge1000. I simply changed the indent. Sionk (talk) 10:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sionk mentions: The issue is whether individual sections of the path, defined solely by the path's organising body for promotional purposes. There is no organisational body. The Wales Coast Path is not an authortity in it's own right; it's a description. The true authorities are the ones I've mentioned: Natural Resources Wales et al, NRW being the single environmental agency for Wales, an amalgam of Countryside Council for Wales, Forestry Commission Wales, and Environmental Agency Wales, together with the local authorities, the Ramblers Cymru and the Welsh Government as I have already mentioned. That one source, therefore has the backing of all these bodies. The use of these path names are also used by other websites and the terms, therefore, are widespread. Secondly, the project will teach wiki editing skills throughout Wales, the scheme of work concentrates on Cadw and Royal Commission listed buildings as well as creating articles on villages and other settlements which currently do not have an article. This will be seen on the Project page in the next few days. The only other element to the project is releasing content on an open license. Thirdly, RobinLeicester's suggestion is very reasonable and quite acceptable to me. Let's Keep this article and 'have a constructive discussion at Wales Coast Path'. I agree that the names are not yet established, and that as Les Barker suggests it would be wrong to prejudice its development at this early stage. Lastly, thanks to all for bringing this into the open; let's now have a little faith in this new and exciting project! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 11:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But none of that is relevant to the question of whether the subject of this article exists as a freestanding article subject now. If you "agree that the names are not yet established", how can you justify the existence of articles about them?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Having been accused variously of being an experienced editor, and of 'looking at a map', I find the need to at least defend the second charge. The published source in question has a large yellow box containing the words, "Wales Coast Path in development. River bridge not yet in place. Please follow diversion marked in green until further notice." I felt (rightly or wrongly) that this source, in conjunction with a secondary source describing the completion of the bridge and the (re)launch of the Bridgend Coast Path made for a notable and well sourced piece of information about the development of the path (And one which would seem rather too specific for the Wales Coast Path article.) I also note (to back up my suggestion that more will be written on the subject of the article) that Northern Eye Books are planning to include a 'South Wales' volume in their series of Wales Coast guidebooks. I can only therefore repeat the statement of the obvious, that South Wales and the Severn Estuary has a coastal path. That it is of note and interest seems well established. I note that the title has received objections, and also, perhaps a related project which was mentioned above - about which I know little - worries some people, (but I don't see how it relates to the merits or otherwise of the proposed deletion). I agree that some (perhaps much) of the content needs to have its promotional waffle removed, and that (like more than a few articles) it is not yet a fully-formed encyclopaedic article, but I don't see why that requires the article to be swept away. RobinLeicester (talk) 22:40, 25 October 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.