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
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
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
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: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
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
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]