Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Los Angeles Veloway


 * 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. No consensus to delete, merging would make sense in this case but there's no consensus for a merge target (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

West Los Angeles Veloway

 * ( [ 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) 20:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to broader article on bike paths. SOme notability for this trail and it's worth including in the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to West_Los_Angeles,_Los_Angeles,_California. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to a combinationa article on these trails. Best solution, in practice.DGG (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Article fails to establish why it is notable. JamesBurns (talk) 09:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep since this track seems notable enough. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 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.