Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E&N Rail Trail

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. postdlf (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E&N Rail Trail[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article about a hiking and biking trail, referenced only to the primary source content of the local government that built and operates it rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage about it. As always, every piece of municipal infrastructure on earth is not automatically guaranteed a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- the question is whether independent sources have paid it enough attention to make its existence noteworthy, not just whether its owner's own self-published website provides technical verification of existence. Bearcat (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bearcat, I created this page as one of my first Wikipages because of large of a project this is. It runs through several cities, sparked multiple stories in the media for many years, and still ongoing. I can do a basic Google Search and pull up a few newspapers covering the story. Local papers and Provincial. The CRD is actually a government entity that runs projects on the Island. Furthermore, you can't have the EN Trail without the various other trails such as the Galloping Goose, which are smaller in scope. You would be hard pressed to find anyone saying that trailis not of extreme importance to the day to day function of multiple cities on the Island. Even the Mayor during the last debates had it as a major issue during the last Victoria mayoral election To be quite blunt, the EN Trail has upturned everyone's life in Victoria and beyond do to the extensive years of ripping up all the major roads to build this trail between several cities.

Here are some story links: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/rail-trail-langford-victoria-1.3896466 https://www.goldstreamgazette.com/news/work-continues-on-en-rail-trail/ https://www.cheknews.ca/new-section-along-en-rail-trail-to-begin-construction-in-fall-480488/ https://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/6-million-loan-urged-to-speed-up-e-n-rail-trail-1.2369368

Hopefully this is will show the importance of this project and to the region. Thank you for your time considering this article. ReliableShick (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per previous discussion here, all state/provincial parks (current or former) are considered notable.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a state or provincial park — it's a municipal recreational facility, which doesn't get the same automatic presumption of notability just for existing in the absence of more than just a smattering of local coverage. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As aboveAugusteBlanqui (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:JUSTAVOTE. You need to give a reason, not just a word. Bearcat (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's enough coverage of the trail on the CBC and in local papers that I think you could write an article that passes WP:GNG, even if the current article doesn't. SportingFlyer talk 17:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JC7V (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a significant amount of coverage, both good and bad, can be found to meet WP:GNG. As a "commuter connection" this can be viewed as a road (that meets notability).--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 05:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It gets a ton of news coverage [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] plus this book, although that only gives it a paragraph. SpinningSpark 13:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough significant coverage exists. SL93 (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What I'm not getting is if the Galloping Goose Trail is ok to have on Wikipedia, and this is MUCH bigger roadway for non-motorists, then why the EN Trail does not qualify? The Notability factor is how wildly divisive this trail has been for over a decade. Living on the Island, There is limited land and even less access to roads. The concept of diverting space from cars and trucks for just non motorized vehicles is significant due to the political shift towards pushing for greener solutions in cities. The green roadway systems on the Island are used as a model for other cities in the world like Vancouver, Seattle, San Francisco, and other international cities. Mostly because we have limited space, harsh winters, and a massively growing population. Makes for a great model to apply to other cities in the world about going green with limited space. So I can understand why a person would say "who cares about this Canadian commuter trail", but when you factor in the politics, the usage of such trails in green projects globally, then you can see the real value. I figured since this trail is bigger, more political, and more covered than the other trails in the area such as the Galloping Goose, that the EN Trail would be a great companion article to complement the other trails in the system already on Wikipedia.ReliableShick (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Other articles are not a reliable guide to what is acceptable on Wikipedia, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Every case is considered on its own merits, but it looks like this one is only going to close one way. SpinningSpark 03:43, 11 December 2018 (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.