Talk:49-Mile Scenic Drive

Question about how list is organized

Hi,

I was just wondering, would eventually the different neighborhoods be listed as headings for the different landmarks? I am asking because right now some landmarks are listed at the top level for example "Mission Dolores", but some are listed under the neighborhood for example the "Coit Tower" is listed under "North Beach". Thanks! --Vanka5 16:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I created the original list from a couple of sources and it evolved a bit from that. I have to admit that the "headings" are awkward. I was hoping someone would fine-tune the list where possible. Schmiteye 07:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Is citation always required?

I just added the section about 14th Street becoming one-way in 2006. I have no way to cite this information; I just happen to live on the block in question. Can anybody clarify the Wikipedia policy on this? MikZ 16:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

a map would be nice

A map of the drive would be a useful addition. Teemu Leisti (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

stolen sign citation

The bit about signs often being stolen says it needs a citation, which exists in the SF Chronicle article referenced at the bottom. I'd add the reference myself, but I'm not sure of the correct syntax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.137.111 (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

We did the drive at 12/25/2009 and were lost a couple of times as we missed some turns b/o stolen signs ;). 69.116.145.111 (talk) 07:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge. Schazjmd (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

---

I propose to merge 49-Mile Scenic Route into 49-Mile Scenic Drive.

49-Mile Scenic Route was invented in 2019 by the San Francisco Chronicle as an alternative to 49-Mile Scenic Drive for non-drivers, and the San Francisco Chronicle provides the only significant coverage of it. The topic does not meet WP:GNG for a stand-alone article, and the bulk of the article is unsuitable for a Wikipedia article (travel guide-style walking directions).

I propose adding the lead of the Route article to the 49-Mile Scenic Drive article as a non-car alternative. I would also add some of the major differences between the Drive and the Route, based on the sources. Schazjmd (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Needless to say, I disagree with you on every point. Jef (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Jef poskanzer, can you find any non-Chronicle sources to support notability for this topic? Schazjmd (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't accept your re-framing to shift the burden of proof. But since you ask, the Scenic Route has in fact been mentioned in the New York Times. Jef (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

There's no "reframing". In my proposal, I challenge the notability of the Route. Do you have a link to the NYT mention? Schazjmd (talk) 00:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposal has been advertised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California/San Francisco Bay Area task force. Schazjmd (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• Merge: There is no evidence of independent notability. As Schazjmd noted, the majority of the article is a series of directions not appropriate for Wikipedia. All of the relevant information on the trail can fit in 1-2 sentences in the 49-Mile Scenic Drive article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I assume you will also be deleting the 1/2 of the Scenic Drive article which is just "a series of directions". Good luck with that. Jef (talk) 04:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
• Merge. The Route seems to have no non-local coverage and could not pass GNG. Its description section is also too far gone to be easily salvaged, while the Drive description section just needs some minor touch-ups to be compliant with USRD standards (the closest approximation we need for articles like these). SounderBruce 00:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.