Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MoPac 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 of the debate was keep. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mopac Trail

It's just some country trail without any special significance. It is too nn to have an article. It should be deleted. King of Hearts | (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment - see my comments on User_talk:76. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Many former railroad beds are being converted to trails across the United States. There are Rails-to-trails books giving descriptions of these. Endomion 02:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand per Endomion. Important for relationship with railroad history. Good background at the BBC's website [1]. -- JJay 02:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  Comment. Please allow editors more than 2 minutes to edit before tagging. -- JJay 02:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, please and thank you.Maybe it is just another trail, but it is history. The fact that now defunct railroads are being converted into walking or bicycling trails is quite efficent. It should be known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand This article contains notability. It needs to be expanded in order to survive deletion. Ajwebb 03:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep geographical locations --Quarl 05:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep plenty of other trails and such have articles here. -- MisterHand 05:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete How short can a trail be before it's non notable? The rails to trails phenomenon is important but are individual trails important? Will people actually seek this info? Maybe it should be merged somewhere? (maybe I'm a mergist! Here I thought I was inclusionist... ack!) ++Lar 07:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per above Jcuk 08:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per Endomion and MisterHand, appears to be a precedent in place for these. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and I am inviting a Nebraskan from Lincoln to help expand it.--MONGO 09:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I've expanded the article significantly. It's one of four or five long-disance recreation trails in Nebraska, and it's part of the American Discovery Trail network. It should stay. –Swid 15:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per policy of keeping geographical locations. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Important trail in Lincoln. I remember riding it many times out to Eagle, Nebraska. Probably could find a better picture, since my dad runs a website for the trail.--Rayc 21:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep former rail trails have historical significance. I have walked many trails and have looked them up. QQ 22:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Surely Keep because this article has been built upon excellently since I began it. There is no reason to delete it. 76 who started the Mopac Trail article
• keep please this is not nn really Yuckfoo 00:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep rails-to-trails conversions. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 11:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I see no valid reason for this to be deleted, and to quote the ever popular deletionist RickK "KEEP ALL REAL PLACES".  ALKIVAR™ 11:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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.