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 keep. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 16:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barbary Coast Trail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This isn't really a trail, that is, it isn't a pathway constructed in its own right like a hiking trail or the Oregon Trail. It's nothing more than a walking tour in San Francisco which is sponsored by the San Francisco Museum and Historical Society. While they managed to get the city to allow permanent markers of the sites on the tour, it appears to be privately run, and I have not been able to get information about the path or specific points on the tour from any source other than the tour's own website, which apparently is separate from the SFMHS. At any rate you seem to have to pay to get a map. External references all seem to be tourist info books/sites saying "in SF, take the Barbary Coast Trail for a tour pof the historic sights." Mangoe (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• further comment Article was apparently created by "trail founder Daniel Bacon" (as it says on the SFMHS website), who has no other edits. Mangoe (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• We do have an article on the 49-Mile Scenic Drive in S.F., which has been well-known in the city for years. This is newer, but I think it is something that visitors do - I've shown parts of the trail myself. There may be a COI problem; at the moment I've no opinion. BPMullins | Talk 01:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a significant body of historical writing on the latter, so I don't see any notability doubts about it. Mangoe (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A Google News Archive search shows extensive coverage in many major newspapers, including several far from San Francisco. It meets WP:GNG. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did find some such documentation, as I said. I didn't find anything that went beyond a "when visiting SF" travel pages level of material. Mangoe (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That could be said of the sources on the majority of notable topics that can be called "tourist attractions". But when we see that sort of coverage, much of it fairly detailed, in a wide variety of newspaper, magazine and book sources, then that adds up to notability, in my view. I understand that others may see matters differently. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoe, you said that you have "not been able to get information about the path or specific points on the tour" from any independent sources. Here are a few. The New York Times ran a story in 1996 called "The Gold Rush Becomes a Walk in San Francisco" that mentioned many of the stops along the trail. A 1996 article, originally in the Contra Costa Times, reprinted in the Lawrence Journal-World, called "Redevopment returns toursits to Barbary Coast", described some tour highlights. A 1998 article in the Los Angeles Times, reprinted in the Eugenre- Register-Guard, called "History comes to life along the Barbary Coast Trail", describes several of the stops. The Washington Post ran a story in 2000 called "San Francisco's Wild and Wicked Walk" that described many of the points of interest. The Lodi News-Sentinel ran a story in 2006 called "San Francisco's past, culture come alive through Barbary Trail", describing ten "must see stops" along the trail. Though the full articles are hidden behind pay walls, the opening paragraphs make it clear that the Contra Costa Times, the San Jose Mercury-News, the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat, the Sacramento Bee, the Modesto Bee, The State in South Carolina, the Deseret News, the Boston Herald, the Washington Times, and the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel have all given significant coverage well beyond passing mention of this topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This topic entirely passes WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Cullen's research shows that the trail has been covered in depth by multiple newspapers, some very non-local. I have no doubt that this trail is also covered in depth in many travel books about San Franscisco. For instance Frommer's San Francisco Free and Dirt Cheap has about a page on it and there is the 250-page book devoted to the trail: Walking San Francisco on the Barbary Coast Trail. The topic is well above general notability thresholds. The article does need more citations and better referencing, but these are surmountable problems WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and surmountable problems suggest that this article be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Like the Freedom Trail in Boston, MA, it constructs through the city historically. -FriscoKnight ^(talk) 8:44 pm 19 March 2013 (PCT)
• Keep; subject has received significant coverage from non-primary reliable sources, clearly passes WP:GNG and is notable beyond its local area.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per RightCowLeftCoast, FriscoKnight, Mark viking, and Cullen328. Based on significant coverage in multiple sources, it is presumed to be notable. While not exactly as notable as Boston's Freedom Trail, it's well known enough by travel junkies around the United States. Mark viking and Cullen328 have found lots of sources to add to the article. Bearian (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per above. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 11:20, 23 March 2013 (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.