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 redirect to The Strand (bicycle path). yandman 12:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Monica bicycle path (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (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) 20:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the already-established The Strand (bicycle path) (the proper name, for which the Santa Monica path is only a part of) which ironically was kept in an AfD last year. Is the in-depth subject of secondary sources like the Los Angeles Times [1][2]--Oakshade (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the The Strand (bicycle path). And concerns about tone should have been addressed by means other than an Afd, IMO. Inappropriate content in bike path articles does not make all bike paths non-notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Article fails to establish why it is notable. JamesBurns (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then work on it to improve it. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't know exactly how this path related to the Strand; what I do know is that in the hands of a better writer than me, someone who knows this area, this could be a nice little article. JamesBurns, it took me a minute to find a dozen valid references, and a bit more time to add them to the article, and to trim away the empty sections that made this article look like a travel guide. Nominating for deletion is not the way, and you have taken up an enormous amount of editors' time, first with that mass-bundling, and now with these individual AfDs, many of which for articles whose subject is easily found to be notable. And your standard Ctrl+C rationale for deletion bugs me more with every AfD I come across. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.