Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Lynn to Avondale shared 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 Cycling in Auckland#Facilities. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Lynn to Avondale shared path

[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)

I cannot find any RS providing SIGCOV, just news releases covering the announcement. The current sourcing is just two different advocacy groups and Auckland Transport. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. This really only had coverage at local level. Ajf773 (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to either Transport in Auckland#Walking and cycling or Cycling in Auckland, which does mention a 1998 "Walking and Cycling Plan" in Cycling in Auckland#Attitudes. There does not seem to be an article about pathways in Auckland, which would be a good merge target. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cycling in Auckland#Facilities. I think the lack of coverage is being overstated, as there is more than "just news releases." I also would describe Greater Auckland as more of an urbanism-focused blog than an advocacy group and will point out that one of the sources from them was actually a guest post by a local board member (not that it really changes anything). Nonetheless, I agree that it's not enough to warrant its own article. Traumnovelle, if you're the one doing the merging, please merge more than just one to two sentences this time or let someone else do it (seeing as Gadfium also thought you didn't merge enough content on another article recently). Cycling in Auckland is probably a good merge target for now, seeing as it gets into the specifics a bit too much for Transport in Auckland. MangoMan11 (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2025 (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.