Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmarthenshire Coast 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 merge to Wales Coast Path. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 10:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carmarthenshire Coast Path

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

Doesn't exist. This is a content fork from Wales Coast Path by the newly created Living Paths! project. Though there were a number of established and well-trodden named coastal walks around the coast of Wales before 2012 (e.g. Millennium Coastal Path and Pembrokeshire Coastal Path ), there was not a Carmarthenshire Coast Path. The 'Living Paths' project provides not a scrap of evidence for its existence, the current sources refer to the Wales Coast Path. Admittedly the official website for the Wales Coast Path divides its guide (and maps) into local authority administrative areas, but this is not proof of a distinct, named coastal walk. Lengthy discussion about these issues can be seen at Talk:Wales Coast Path.

An AfD for the "Gower and Swansea Bay Coast Path" and "South Wales Coast and Severn Estuary Coastal Path" has already been launched; unfortunately "Carmarthenshire Coast Path" wasn't included at the time and it may have complicated things to add it retrospectively! Sionk (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Wales Coast Path in Carmarthenshire. It seems to me that the path exists, but not under that name.
Delete or Redirect. I'm not seeing the justification for a standalone article based on sources. There should be a well developed article for the whole path with a sub-section for each path-section -- if/when those sub-sections get too long break off to a standalone article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wales Coast Path. I agree with Green Cardamom on the approach to take here since the parent article is quite short and this and the others seem to be essentially parts of the whole, but that is essentially an editing matter. I see no grounds for not keeping the information. Happily, a merge would largely obviate the rather fruitless arguments over naming! --AJHingston (talk) 12:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and start a separate merge discussion. In truth, I find it hard to argue that as a standalone page it presently meets WP:GNG but equally it contains useful information and I don't see how deletion benefits the Project. Wales Coast Path is unequivocally notable and there is an argument to merge the eight daughter pages into that main page. However, it is very much an editorial decision how the information should be best organised hence the need for an overarching merge discussion. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2013 (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.