Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boca Grande Bike 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 keep. J04n(talk page) 13:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boca Grande Bike Path[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of significant coverage. This bike path exists and that's about it. Occasional mention in a blog or e-zine that it exists or is scenic, but not the significant coverage needed to pass notability. Although WP:LOCAL is an essay, it does seem to address the issue pretty well. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC) Niteshift36 (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, local trivia. Kierzek (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Florida's first rail trail ([1]), it has some notability that reaches a statewide audience. Sounder Bruce 00:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allegedly being first at something doesn't make it notable. Most bike paths are not notable in the first place, so being the first in a field of non-notables is not much of an achievement. What does make it notable is significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Failure of WP:BEFORE D1 on Google books. Unscintillating (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- passes GNG. I tried to find some sort of guideline on trails but there doesn't seem to be one. I think we usually keep this stuff though. Regardless, I was able to find a non-local source for this. From the travel section of a newspaper in Cleveland:[2]--Rusf10 (talk) 05:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Others report it meets GNG. Also "rail trails" are sufficiently rare as to make them all notable. Definitely all can be listed, e.g. in List of rail trails in the United States, and one could possibly be covered as a list-item rather than a separate article. However again this apparently meets notability standards. --Doncram (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Barely enough to pass GNG, but "barely" is "enough", and there is enough here. We also need to remember that Wikipedia is not paper and thus we can cover things that our dead-tree-honed instincts go "well that wouldn't be included-" in many cases. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2017 (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.