Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmarthenshire Coast Path

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]