Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollywood Trails

: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 delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

=[[:Hollywood Trails]]=

:{{la|Hollywood Trails}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hollywood_Trails Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Hollywood Trails}})

It would appear to me that there may well be article subjects that would pass the tests for notability that could be called "Hollywood Trails", perhaps about bicycle or hiking paths in Hollywood (the place in LA) or perhaps one about frequently followed tourism routes in Hollywood (more generally speaking with the meaning the Cinema of the United States.

This article is not about these topics. It is about a business venture called "Hollywood Trails: Eco-Adventure Kewl Bicycle Tours". It [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hollywood_Trails&oldid=285560505 was moved to its current title] on April 23 2009.

I note that the article was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hollywood_Trails&oldid=256177804 initially created December 6, 2008] as an article about an astrologer.

In its current state, its references - such as they are - are two BlogSpot websites. As self-published sources, they cannot assist the article's claim to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

I would argue that this article fails the WP:CORP test. Shirt58 (talk) 10:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Bike tours of Hollywood, Florida, (and 99.9999% of other places) don't generate a lot of media interest. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Delete fails the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Delete not notable in current form. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:04, 30 September 2017 (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.