Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bank of Carmel

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. Star Mississippi 13:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bank of Carmel

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

extra hyper-local run of the mill buildings that does not fall under WP:GEOFEAT because it's not protected under national status. Trivial coverage in an Oakland newspaper and SF Chronicle, lots of snippet coverages based on ultra hyper-local Carmel-Pinecone weekly tabloid. This appears to be part of the ongoing construction of Carmel-by-the-Sea related walled garden by one creator. Graywalls (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, Business, Companies, and California. Graywalls (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Bank of Carmel is connected with artist Paul Whitman who constructed two bas reliefs for the front of the Bank of Carmel building. The bank article links to Thomas Albert Work, Charles O. Goold, and Barnet J. Segal , who were important directors for the building. The Art Deco style of the building is a significant historical aspect. The city of Carmel has recognized the building as an important historical site in there Downtown Conservation District Historic Property Survey. Secondary sources by Kent Seavey and Sharron Lee Hale (see edit request) show WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBUILDING. The building is notable as a result of its historic, social, and architectural importance. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Seavey, how significant is the coverage? The citation in the article is to a single page, and the link provided shows that this page is just a photo & caption in a book of photos. Axad12 (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about size of coverage but about what is significant. The Kent Seavey book gives a good overview of Bank of Carmel, how it looked before it has been turned into a retail store, its relationship to Barnet J. Segal and artist Paul Whitman. It is an important source to show the historical important of the building. I've added a second source in an edit request on the talk page. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, just to be clear, when you say "good overview" you mean a single photo and caption?

Do we assume therefore that, in your opinion, every property with a photograph in that book satisfies WP:NBUILDING? Or, indeed, every property that has ever appeared in a captioned photograph in any book? Axad12 (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is more than a photo and a caption. Under the photo is a full, multi-sentence description with names, dates, and info on the bank. WP:GNG's "significant coverage" does not require a volume of words. It can also mean the quality of the words. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a captioned photo in a local picture book. However, I do agree with you when you say that to you that qualifies as WP:SIGCOV. Axad12 (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you changed your comment - you deleted the bit that said "To me that is WP:SIGCOV". Why did you delete that bit? Axad12 (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, please, multiple editors have explained to you multiple times that a photograph or a photo caption does not count as SIGCOV nor contributes to notability criteria. It might be ok to use to back up a fact, but that's it. Do you not remember reading or hearing this advice in the past? Netherzone (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are allowed to make changes. The topic of WP:GNG is important in relation to WP:SIGCOV. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, you still say Seavey counts as SIGCOV? Axad12 (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The correct way (meaning best practices) to make changes at AfDs is to strike out the text that is no longer applicable or changed, then add the new text. That is so other editors can have a comprehensive understanding of the points being made. Netherzone (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Greghenderson2006:, all of those names are biography articles in your walled garden in Carmel/Pebble Beach/Monterey/California topic area. Graywalls (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had the exact same thought earlier this morning - yet another walled garden. Probably many of these articles can be merged or redirected, but this is yet another big clean up project. It may be best waiting a week or two, and tackling it in an organized way, identifying key articles are indisputably notable that might be appropriate merge/redirect targets. Thoughts? Netherzone (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To above comments: Please read the follwoing two articles:
Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia

Criticism of Wikipedia
I think they are key here as it covers the topic of deleting articles in Wikipedia, excessive rule-making, edit warring, and uneven policy application. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if only there wasn't so much excessive rule-making, e.g. UPE, COI, GNG, SIGCOV, etc., etc. Axad12 (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTINHERITED. Full stop. Ravenswing 22:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar - I haven't yet looked into all of the sources, but at least half of the current ones are press releases, they are not even "trivial coverage", they are press-release based PR announcements placed in newspapers, not SIGCOV. See Wikipedia:Independent_sources#Press_releases for more information. Netherzone (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you call press releases are actually important pieces of primary source information that tells a story and is part of the history! For example, "Carmel Notes". Oakland Tribune. Oakland, California. 14 Oct 1923. p. 25. Retrieved 2022-05-24, says "Carmel's new bank was the first and only one the city has had." This indicates it was the first bank in Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, which is significant. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are press releases. Netherzone (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't tell if the article is supposed to be about the short-lived bank or the building. If it's about the bank, it fails the WP:NCORP test of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS, and if it's about the building, which is not on any historic registers that carry presumed notability, it fails WP:NBUILD, which calls for "significant in-depth coverage." What's offered here is a series of primary sources, trivial local newspaper mentions, and unreliable sources like Arcadia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nom that this is part of the Carmel WP:Walled garden, yet another run of the mill local building that is not on the NRHP, thus failing WP:BUILD. I am also in agreement with Dclemens1971 that as a bank it does not meet WP:NCORP criteria for SIRS & SIGCOV. The creator still does not seem to understand that notability is not inherited from allegedly "notable" people associated with the structure. What we have in terms of sourcing is: 1) a nomination form by the Parks & Recreation (primary source); 2) a press-release printed in a newspaper (primary source); 3) another press release (primary source), 4) another press release (primary source); 5) a photo and photo caption in a tourist-trade book published by a marginal publisher (Arcadia) whose reliability is questionable (not SIGCOV and low-quality source); 6) a short piece without a by-line in the hyper-local weekly tabloid, The Pine Cone; 7) a meeting agenda (primary source, really wondering why this is even included?); 8) a 404 dead link in The Pine Cone (hyper local weekly tabloid); 9) an advertisement in The Pine Cone (WTF?); 10) a photo and caption in a report by the City of Carmel (primary source). None of this contributes to the notability of the bank as a business nor the building, therefore also fails WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Looks like Netherzone and Graywalls always come to the plate to delete good articles that have plenty of sources, including primary and secondary ones. This Deletionists mentality is a reason why many have criticism of Wikipedia. An enclypodia should free to write on many topics both of local and national interest. Based on WP:GNG, the article has significant coverage in reliable sources. More sources have been included in the edit request. Instead of trying to delte articles we should be encouraging fellow Wikipedians to add additional sources if needed. I feel that some people are to quick to judge and just delete articles they don't like. That shouldn't be how an enclypodia works to educate them on topics like the first bank in Carmel! Greg Henderson (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen: Part of a campaign to get every last ditch of Carmel-by-the-Sea related stuff into Wikipedia, even if they are not notable and there is little to no reliable sourcing, which includes this article. Most of the article's sources are not independent of the subject or are press releases. Haruka Amaranth 01:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see edit request sources. BTW, the Carmel Bank was a pretty notable bank in its day. It was the first bank in that city. Greg Henderson (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The various superlatives of first, biggest, richest, largest, oldest in a local villages and townships are not a cause for creating an encyclopedia article. Graywalls (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the reasons outlined by Dclemens1971 and Netherzone Axad12 (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Netherzone's thorough source-by-source analysis is spot-on as usual, and Dclemens1971 also provides an accurate summary of the available coverage and how it squares up to notability guidelines. Left guide (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen WP is not a platform for local tourism projects, we have guidelines for establishing notability which requires a certain standard from sources, none of which are met here. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This is certainly not tourism! It about the history of bank, which was the 1st bank in the village of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Greg Henderson (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and part of a Carmel-by-the-Sea walled garden of non notable entities 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Honestly, it's looking like WP:CreatedbyGregHenderson is going to wind up as one of the tacit reasons to advocate deletion. An obvious GNG fail to anyone not GH, and if he wants to continue to promote Carmel following his community block at ANI, he can do so on his own website, and best of luck to him. Ravenswing 22:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the sentiments above. In relation to the use of the press release being used I'd like to point out that even if this was a quick note in the newspaper and not a press release, simply being the "first and only" bank established in a community who's population is rather small (Carmel-by-the-Sea's peaked at about 4,700 residents) is not really proof of any sort of notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2024 (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.