Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California Aqueduct bikeway

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 California Aqueduct with no prejudice against keeping if sourced and notability can be established (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

California Aqueduct bikeway

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) 20:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to California Aqueduct. As far as I can tell, this is quite simply no longer a bike path, due to post-9/11 concerns about the security of the water supply. If merged (or deleted, which I would oppose per WP:PRESERVE) seems to me it should be pulled from the LA bike paths template, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to California Aqueduct. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Article fails to establish why it is notable. JamesBurns (talk) 09:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since it is notable. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to California Aqueduct. There's not enough information to support a separate article, but a previously existing bikeway that was the longest in the area clearly needs to be covered for historic purposes. Drmies' search prove it's verifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:39, 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.