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 no consensus. There is a case for developing the historical ramifications of mountain biking on Mt. Tamalpais, but the article as-is does not go into detail. As the article has been transwikied, the only action left is for much of the content to be rewritten, but that is an editorial decision independent of the deletion process. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

• Delete: This article is a content fork created after blatently unencyclopedic material was removed from the article Mount Tamalpais. The article is essentially a mountain biking guide to Mount Tamalpais and, like other "how to" guides, has a place in Wikibooks, but not Wikipedia. Peter G Werner 07:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Are you sure Wikibooks wants this type of material? b:WB:WIW#Wikibooks is not a general repository for nonfiction works seems to suggest otherwise: All works here must conform to Wikimedia-wide policy of NPOV, no original research, etc. As such, the vast majority of books which you would find on the nonfiction shelves of a book store are not appropriate for Wikibooks. A quick browse around Wikibooks finds some material that seems to violate that guideline, but maybe the policy enforcers haven't gotten around to it yet. In any case, Bicycling Wiki definitely wants cycling-related articles of this kind. --Teratornis 19:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Bicycling Wiki it is, then. I figure the "trail guide" info is appropriate, somewhere, just not on Wikipedia. Peter G Werner 22:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, WP:NOT a sports guide. Sandstein 07:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, This content fork seems pertinent to the Mount Tamalpais article. Mt. Tam is the birthplace of mountain biking and provides ideal beginner to advanced mountain biking terrain on its extensive trails system. It is a premier and renowned mountain biking recreation destination that readers would like to know more about. This article provides specific links to locations to ride and the best rides that other editors can contribute to. That information would probably be overlooked by readers at the more general links that the Mount Tamalpais article has already been reduced to. Also, WP:NOT does not NOT mention "sports guide" or sports.  uriel8  (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:NOT does not mention every single possible example of what kind of content does not belong in Wikipedia. But by way of analogy, a mountain biking guide is almost the same as a travel guide, which is specifically mentioned as an example of unencyclopedic content in point 2 under WP:NOT#IINFO. Again, why not just start a wikibook on "Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais" or "Recreation on Mount Tamalpais"? Peter G Werner 09:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a part of Wikiproject Cycling. It provides a valuable addition to to the Recreation section of the Mount Tamalpais article because of the relevance of mountain biking to the mountain itself, being the historic origin of the sport of mountain biking.  uriel8  (talk) 09:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and brief essay - I am a member of WikiProject Cycling, and a personally non-neutral partisan of cycling, but all WikiProjects must conform to Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a general-purpose information appliance for any particular group of users. Perhaps the most basic feature of encyclopedic content is that it has been published in a reputable source already; see: WP:VERIFY and WP:ATTRIBUTE. Everything we write on Wikipedia has to be attributable to a reputable source. That's why, among the bicycling-related articles, there seem to be so many articles about elite bicycle racing, and fewer articles about the bicycling most bicyclists actually do: bicycle races are widely reported in published sources, whereas much of non-competitive bicycling gets less press. The key to writing an encyclopedic article about a cycling-related topic is to get the article's information from published sources, and cite them all properly. Doing that generally avoids these article deletion nominations.

Given that Mount Tamalpais is notable at least within the cycling community and literature, demonstrating that notability should be straightforward, if somewhat laborious. Someone merely needs to research the cycling literature and find multiple published sources documenting the history of mountain biking on Mount Tamalpais. I can recall reading about the legendary "Repack" race years ago (mentioned in Gary Fisher, but also unsourced there, regrettably). There have probably been notable bicycle races on or around Mount Tamalpais, reported in published sources, which could go in the article without dispute.

Writing about cycling in an encyclopedic style would be simpler if editors had online access to the complete library of published cycling literature. Unfortunately we don't, as far as I know. One worthwhile task for WikiProject Cycling would be to assemble the most comprehensive possible list of what material is suitable for sourcing cycling-related articles on Wikipedia.

In the meantime, any cycling-related article deemed unsuitable for Wikipedia is welcome on Bicycling Wiki, which has no requirement for encyclopedic content. --Teratornis 20:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It appears that User:Uriel8 has notified a number of other users of this debate. I make no assumptions as to their intentions, this is for information only. Chris cheese 09:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclaimer - I am one of the users so notified. However, I think I can add constructively to the discussion. See below. --Teratornis 17:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's written like the contents of a guidebook, and so it belongs elsewhere. BlankVerse 11:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - content forks not allowed, a blatant how-to/travel guide, which isn't allowed either. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewrite within another article. The article looks like a content fork, and the how-to style isn't very encyclopedic. On the other hand, there's some significant history of mountain biking that happened on Mt. Tam. I'd suggest removing the driving directions from the article and adding some history of the pioneers of the sport as practiced on Mt. Tam. As far as the trail descriptions are concerned, they can either be covered by an external link, or summarized with a couple quick sentences. The pictures can be included as a gallery within another article. As far as the merge goes, I'd suggest putting the useful content either in Mount Tamalpais or Mount Tamalpais State Park. I'll also mention the Mountain biking in British Columbia article as a precedent. I created that article several months ago by splitting off some content from Mountain biking that was digressing from the main article content. Also, I'll mention that my opinion was solicited in the discussion, but when that happens, I don't always vote "keep" indiscriminately. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 14:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – You're right about the historical information, however, note that there's very little historical information in Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais and that that information is already in the Mount Tamalpais article. If the historical information on mountain biking on Mt Tam got to be extensive enough, that could justify a breakout article from the main "Mount Tamalpais" article. However, as it stands, the real reason for the present breakaway article is to include largely unencyclopedic content. Peter G Werner 20:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suspect that given the prominence of Mount Tamalpais in the cycling community for 25+ years, there is probably more than enough properly-sourceable historical material to fill an article. However, digging it up would be some work. --Teratornis 20:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Bicycling Wiki and develop there. Bicycling Wiki welcomes articles of this type, which provide the kind of information cyclists need. As far as whether an article about mountain biking on Mount Tamalpais can be made suitable for Wikipedia, that seems straightforward enough, because the area has been extensively documented in the cycling literature. I suggest putting the how-to, travel-guide information on Bicycling Wiki, which wants this information, and working on an encyclopedic version of the article for Wikipedia, which can for example survey the extensive cycling literature references to mountain biking in the area, and link to the eponymous Bicycling Wiki article for the travel guide material. I've been cycling since 1980, and I've been reading about mountain biking on Mount Tamalpais for as long as I can remember. The location is legendary among cyclists. --Teratornis 17:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I think this would be a really good solution. I don't deny that the information that Uriel8 wants to add isn't useful in some context, just not in Wikipedia. Peter G Werner 20:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, copy to bicyclingwiki.com. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki per Teratornis. Article's author should be reminded that Wikipedia is not a travel guide or a how-to guide. Aecis^Brievenbus 20:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewrite within another article. I agree with [[User:Elkman|Elkman]. If Mt Tamalpais has historical significance in the development of mountain biking, then a new article should be written concentrating on the historical aspects. The current article reads more like a travel guide. I'm sure it will be a useful addition to other sites, but not really encyclopedic in its current form. Moxfyre 20:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I just found out that much of the content in the Mount Tamalpais and Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais is straight up plagiarized from the following website: [1]. That's going to mean the "Mount Tamalpais" article is going to require a lot of cleanup to separate the plagiarized parts from legitimate contributions. <grumble> Peter G Werner 20:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC) – It appears the website in question copied Wikipedia – sorry! Peter G Werner 20:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais does make some very strong claims to notability. Such as being the "birthplace" of mountainbiking and having had famous races there. I'm going to take the word of members of WikiCyling on this for now.... but it would help a lot if we have a few sources for these claims. Mathmo ^Talk 20:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, disagree with nom. With a few minor changes, there would be no reason as to why I cannot stay on Wikipedia. Dfrg.msc 21:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or transfer the info somewhere else but not in Wikipedia. When it comes down to it Wikipedia is NOT a travel guide (WP:NOT#IINFO), mountain biking guide, how to guide, or any other kind of guide - its and encyclopedia. AfD debates should always be focused on policy and it is pretty clear in this case. Madmedea 21:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - mountain biking at this location appears to meet notability criteria and is certainly of interest to the cycling community. However, I agree with others who have noted the article does need a rewrite so that references/citations are provided and to make the style more encyclopedic. A 'guide style version' could live on in the Bicycling Wiki Peter Campbell 22:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable points in the history of mountain biking such as supposed invention and races.<marquee>James Barlow 23:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unfortunately for this article I am a strong believer in WP:CITE and it doesnn't appear to be anything close to citing something. Also for the title, I<m not to enthused... Next thing we'll have mountain biking in the Gatineau Hills. A lot of the information appears to be first hand experience trip or original research. Up to what level can and should an article allow such info. According to WP:OR we shouldn't allow it. Good start but I don't quite see an legitimate article. If you want to do the pictures maybe you should have a gallery at the commons and then link the main article about that area. with all the stuff that needs to be improved I think this could probably be 2 - 3 tiny paragraphs.I recommend the information be copied to a usser sub-page as a personal experience tab for exemple.--CyclePat 03:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – if this article is kept, it will have to be knocked back to a short stub immediately. So far, I've heard some good arguments on the potential for an encyclopedic article on mountain biking on Mt. Tamalpais, however, I haven't seen anybody make a good case for keeping the most of the existing content. The "travel guide" style content flat out goes against the guidelines of WP:NOT and belongs in Bicycling Wiki, not Wikipedia. Peter G Werner 07:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the development of Mountain Biking and its association with this area makes it notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. However, much of the existing content needs editing and perhaps some deletion, with proper referencing of sources, including its historical notability. I suggest the article is cut back to a stub. I was contacted to participate in this discussion as a contributor to Wikiproject Cycling. --Takver 12:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Takver, the are is very important for mountain biking history and I believe is notable enough to be included here. But I also think much of the content must be deleted or transwikied or something. Maybe it can be left as a cycling-stub. --Suleyman Habeeb 18:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I've taken the liberty of transwiki-ing this article to Bicycling Wiki. (Most of it, anyway, they don't allow image uploads.) It can be found here: Bicycling Wiki: Mount Tamalpais. Peter G Werner 19:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thanks for transwiki-ing. I'm checking on the image uploads with the Bicycling Wiki proprietor. My understanding from a few months ago was that Bicycling Wiki would allow image uploads. --Teratornis 06:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the Bicycling Wiki sysop fixed the problem. Let me know if you have any problems with image upload. --Teratornis 21:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There doesn't seem to be consensus for deleting the article. Is there at least consensus on the fact that most of the present content of the article (which constitutes both a content fork and a kind of travel guide) is inappropriate and should be deleted? In other words, knock the article back to a stub until it can be expanded with encyclopedic content. Peter G Werner 19:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete blatently unsourced spam. Why is there even a discussion? WilyD 20:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The List of rides that are useful to people who read Wikipedia is sourced to the same place that the Mount Tamalpais recreation section is sourced to: Marin Trials site. The reason that it is useful to break it out for casual readers who are interested in mountain biking is that it would take them 30 minutes to find any of them there.  uriel8  (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that so far, you've failed to provide any valid argument according to Wikipedia policy for keeping the content of this article. Your arguments have simply been variations on "Its Useful", which in itself is not a valid reason for including an article or particular content. Peter G Werner 21:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we can link to your transwiki to the Bicycling wiki you can delete the Wikipedia article.  uriel8  (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I just added this link, and had intended to do so anyway. I'm going to wait until this AfD is closed before making further modifications to the article. Peter G Werner 00:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This comment does not seem to address my concern that the article is blatently unsourced spam. I'm perplexed - perhaps you care to elaborate? WilyD 21:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Jumps out right at me as an advertisement, or at least not an article from an encyclopedia. If not deleted, this article needs a total rewrite.--Windsamurai 02:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per WP:NOT, we're not a how-to guide. There is a section in the article on Mount Tamalpais about hiking and biking, and it's appropriate there (I'd argue) to provide a link to www.bicyclingwiki.com. (And if it's not appropriate as a footnote, it certainly should be okay as an external link.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Broughton (talk • contribs) 16:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per nom Avi 16:50, 23 February 2007 (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.