Talk:List of Historic Buildings in Carmel-by-the-Sea

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Isabel Leidig Building was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 3 February 2024 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into List of Historic Buildings in Carmel-by-the-Sea. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Percy Parkes Building was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 3 February 2024 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into List of Historic Buildings in Carmel-by-the-Sea. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Notability of individual buildings[edit]

(moved from user talk) Your recent redirects e.g., for the Doud Building as "fails WP:N criteria" and removal of content because it is "highly questionable source," appears to be an urgent problem.

How are you determing which ones to keep and which ones to redirect?
Removal of content just because the source is from Arcadia Publishing seems unreasonable.
Some recent discussion has already been covered on the Talk:The Tuck Box, on my user page, and at WP:ARCADIA.
Arcadia Publishing is NOT listed on WP:RSP
The discussion here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 426 did not resolve anything.

I am willing to work with you on this. An alternative is to bring these incidents to WP:DRN or WP:ANI noticeboards. Greg Henderson (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The decision to keep or redirect is based on a straightforward assessment of WP:GNG. Many, if not most of them (including the Doud Building you are using as an example), were already tagged some time ago by other editors with {{notability}} which states If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted.

Questionable sources stay out of articles unless they can be proven reliable by those wishing to include it per WP:BURDEN, and there also needs to be editorial consensus per WP:ONUS.

Just because a source isn't listed at RSP doesn't make it automatically reliable.

In that RSN discussion you started, you failed to gain consensus that it is reliable in the way you seem to think it is.

This is not an "urgent problem" because all of the content and sources from older versions can be retrieved from the redirect histories, and you can work on improving material in drafts and sandboxes. Nothing is permanently lost or damaged, and there's nothing that can't be resolved through normal talk page discussion like we are having here. Left guide (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Greghenderson2006 in case you didn't see this (forgot to add a ping in my first reply). Left guide (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Left guide: Thanks for your responses. It helps when understanding your viewpoints. It is frustrating to see articles that I spent so much time be deleted because an editor(s) decides it is not notable and deletes all the content with a redirect. At least I have the list of buildings as a representation of Carmel's historic district. Perhaps some day the district and/or some of the buildings will get on the national registry.

The other question is why don't you mark text that is from a unreliable source with the tag ^{[better source needed]}? That way readers can see the information and have a "clue" that they can add this source. By removing it, you loose valuable information and the reader missing this and has no chance to improve the article unless they go through all the article's history. Do you understand this question? Greg Henderson (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand the question; it is unlikely in most cases that better sources exist for hyper-local material only cited to Arcadia. Also, most of us volunteers have limited time in working on these types of articles, which is why I've done a lot of those changes in such a bold fashion. I'm not opposed to merging some content into here from the former articles into the "notes" column, maybe a sentence or two summary that is well-sourced. That would be a much more WP:DUE presentation of this kind of material. Left guide (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when you merge, please add the sentence or two as a summary that is well sourced. Or, I can do it through an edit request. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]