Deletion of Sepulveda Dam bicycle path

Comment: This is crazy. This many articles in one AfD renders it impossible to research secondary sources in a limited amount of time and work on improving them per .  Remember, we're ''volunteer'' editors with lives and jobs.  In a few minutes I was able to look up Santa Ana River bicycle path and already found secondary sources http://books.google.com/books?id=rNgnP1Der_sC&pg=PA7&dq=%22Santa+Ana+River+bicycle+path%22#PPA7,M1http://books.google.com/books?id=odu-H8wlW44C&pg=PA183&dq=%22Santa+Ana+River+bicycle+path%22.  Apparently the government agency Orange County Flood Control District published a ''whole book'' about it.http://books.google.com/books?id=_Ke_HAAACAAJ&dq=%22Santa+Ana+River+bicycle+path%22.  The Sepulveda Dam bicycle path has secondary sources too, like an entire multi-paged book chapter about it.http://books.google.com/books?id=WLNt6rBgSz8C&pg=PA154&dq=%22Sepulveda+Dam+bicycle+path%22#PPA157,M1.  The California Aqueduct bikeway has several in-dpeth secondary sources like from the ''Los Angeles Times'' http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/58588694.html?dids=58588694:58588694&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Apr+20%2C+1986&author=ANNE+Z.+COOKE%3B+STEVE+HAGGERTY&pub=Los+Angeles+Times+(pre-1997+Fulltext)&desc=Biking+Along+California+Aqueduct&pqatl=google and the ''Modesto Bee''http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=MS&p_theme=ms&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0F1D59224E973B68&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM and others.  We can't be expected to do such research and possible article improvements for 13 articles for one AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)