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. I'm setting aside the first "keep", as it has no basis in policy, but not the second, as despite canvassing concerns it has a basis in policy and is argued on the merits. Nonetheless, there is consensus to delete; where there is policy-based disagreement (in this case about WP:AUD), numerical tilt comes into play. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Carmel Valley Historical Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I got an opinion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) and I believe not having an article on local historical societies is reasonable absent unusual notability.

I am suggesting deletion, because it is hyperlocal and lacks broader area notability applicable in worldwide scope (WP:NORG) and it also looks like a brochure of what they have to offer and visitor information complete with name of EACH staff member in infobox. (WP:NOT) Graywalls (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, and California. Graywalls (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Carmel Valley Historical Society is listed under the List of historical societies that includes counties like Monterey County, California. Easily passes (WP:BASIC) and (WP:RS). The article on the Carmel Valley Historical Society provides the history of the Carmel Valley, California including the Rumsen and Esselen tribes. The article highlights museum-like exhibits for the Carmel Valley Airfield, Carmel Valley Village, and the early pioneer Hatton family. The article also provides the society's goal to preserving, collecting, researching, and documenting of oral histories. Greg Henderson (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC) ←article creator[reply]
• Delete I can't find any significant coverage here. There are barely any hits even on GNews. Does not appear to be notable. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the sourcing is either primary, trivial, or hyper-local. The piece about the museum opening is a standard press-release based community announcement type article. This is a run-of-the-mill society of which there are thousands in the U.S. WP:MILL. Does not pass WP:NCORP criteria for inclusion of organizations and companies. Historical societies don't have inherent notability merely because it exisrs, nor do they inherit notability from the associared people or events, (such as someone who is mentioned in an exhibit.) An alternative to deletion would be to redirect or merge to Carmel Valley, as this org does not need it's own separate article. Netherzone (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Note to closing admin: The article creator is canvassing several other editors to "keep" and "not delete" this article. [1], [2],[3]. Netherzone (talk) 03:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As a 9-year WP veteran of almost 200 AfDs, this was my first talk page solicitation. I was surprised and annoyed by the flippant response of the article's clueless creator after I called out their WP:CANVASSING. Typically in evaluating an AfD, I conduct a search for additional sources, and if I find RS, go for WP:HEY and revise the article to meet notability requirements. In this instance, however, while there are a few decent newspaper sources on the Carmel Valley History Center, there are only passing mentions of the Society. In my judgment there are not enough sources on the historical society itself to warrant this article: as Gertrude Stein said of Oakland, "There's no there, there." — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 09:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes, I was pinged and wp:canvassing was likely not followed properly but appears due to not knowing. That is not a reason to not objectively evaluate the article. IMO sourcing satisfies GNG which does not rule out local sources. Also they are somewhat synonymous with the building which I think would pass N:Geo. Also the topic and content is encyclopedic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed unsigned "canvassed" comment attached to my post. I already opened with noting that and also said there and here that it would not affect my evaluation. What is the point of saying "canvassed" ....to doubt the latter and deprecate my opinion? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• NCORP is the generally accepted practices for companies and organizations per numerous discussions on project and talk pages. This article wouldn't pass WP:AUD. IMHO, this input is foul since Greghenderson handpicked those who they felt were likely to cast a vote in their favor! Graywalls (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm aware of those interpretations (on which SNG to apply and that the SNG modifies/supercedes GNG) and generally agree with it, especially on profit-making businesses which I think is what people had in mind when creating the wording. I took that and the other noted factors into my "keep" and still recommend that. North8000 (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Agreed that it fails AUD. The lead paragraph of WP:ORG says, The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams. (Italics mine.) The Carmel Valley Historical Society is a non-profit association, but it does not qualify as an "educational institution". To prevent non-neutral promotional articles, WP:GNG is not enough for organizations, which are handled separately under WP:ORG. This article must therefore must meet the WP:AUD subsection of WP:ORG that says Attention solely from local media (e.g., the weekly newspaper for a small town), or media of limited interest and circulation (e.g., a newsletter exclusively for people with a very unusual job), is not an indication of notability. I've looked pretty thoroughly for regional/statewide sources, but the article fails that notability criterion. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment On North8000's talk page, the article's creator posted this We have spoken before about the Carmel Development Company Building and the Edward G. Kuster articles, and I know you are interested in California History. Please check out the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmel Valley Historical Society and add your 2 cents to keep the article. I think the article has merit and should not be deleted. Any help you can be provide would be appreciated. Thanks!. He also posted something very similar to several other users on wiki. I am uncertain about extent to which he canvassed outside of Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My intent was not to canvass but to see if other editors could speak up and save an article that I feel is worth keeping as the only Historical Scoiety in the Carmel Valley area. Canvassing is a new concept to me and I now know not to do it. However, it should distract from the merit of the article. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually Greg Henderson specifically asked that North8000 vote K**P before changing his post after being called out for canvassing.[4] I think the closing admin take this canvassing into consideration, and also please consider reading the talk page of the article creator to understand the long time (over 10 year) history of COI, UPE and promotional editing. It seems that this article is part of a walled garden. Nor is this the first time canvassing took place as it also happened after numerous articles on the Henderson family and their associates were created by the same editor., so any claims that they did not know any better is questionable. Netherzone (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  BTW the background description on my talk page is not accurate. As far as I can tell my only interaction was that during NPP work I marked the two linked articles as reviewed and left one of my common complimentary notes on those and I never expressed the particular interest described. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Obviously many hours of work have been put in over many years by this editor to create this article and a large number of connected articles and it is disappointing to now have all this questioned. Unfortunately, most of them consist of large amounts of WP:OR, and use local and self published sources, not to mention are not written with a WP:NPOV. I wish this was picked up/addressed much earlier. But for the purposes of this discussion, it seems to me the only thing that matters is WP:ORG, and specifically WP:AUD, which is not met. Melcous (talk) 23:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Please look at the list of County and local societies. California only has three that are written. Now look at the two other ones that are written and you will see a similiar style. This one, the Carmel Valley Historical Society has WP:RS and follows the WP:SNG and WP:GNG guidelines. Don't delete it just because you have an issue with the editor. BTW, the Orange County Historical Society (Orange County, California) has WP:SPS and is shorter and less informational than my article. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But... there are other similar articles is usually not a good justification. If you find ones that do not meet NORG, AFD them. Graywalls (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than WP:Articles for deletion, wouldn't it be better to notify the author/editor, and give them a chance to improve it? Where is this desire to nuke them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greghenderson2006 (talk • contribs)

• Comment I have new WP:SECONDARY's to support the article and its history. Both citations provide interpretation and synthesis of the of the facts regarding the opening of the center in 2009 and later the museum in 2013. You can read them at the article's Talk page for Request Edit B. Greg Henderson (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  These Carmel/Pebble Beach/Monterey articles rely very heavily on hyper-local trivial coverage like the Carmel Pine Cone, which is a weekly publication with a circulation of 18,500. Melcous is correct that the article fails WP:ORG (aka WP:NCORP) and WP:AUD. Organizations and businesses have no inherent notability. What you are bringing to the table with the Monterey Herald is trivial coverage about a construction project and fundraising for the construction, such as Individuals and families pay $100 for a small tile and $250 for a larger one. Businesses pay $200 and $400. “If we sold 1,000 tiles, we”d have the money to finish the project,” Jones said. The society had sold 200 so far, he said. and And a rummage sale will be held later this month at Hidden Valley as a fundraiser, Jones said. It's obvious that it is a community advertorial piece, esp. since it concludes with: For information on how to support the history center, call 659-4338. This is PROMO, not journalism. Netherzone (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Reading the WP:ORG it says, "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The Carmel Valley Historical Society has 11 source citations, which is "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources, that are both primary and secondary. Why would you want to delete an article that has already been reviewed, has 11 source citations, with coverage independent of the article subject? If we are truly an "encyclopedia," then we should allow the Carmel Valley Historical Society to belong to the List of historical societies. Greg Henderson (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I find the comments above by User:North8000 to be persuasive. The WP:AUD requirement in WP:NCORP was passed with the intention of curbing the proliferation of paid (or at least promotional) articles on for-profit businesses. The same concerns really don't apply to historical societies which are not driven by the profit motive. Historical societies at their core are intended to promote research, learning, and education about our collective past -- a purpose entirely consistent with our goals here at Wikipedia. I am persuaded that application of WP:AUD to such historical societies is inconsisent with our core encyclopedic purpose. Of course, GNG/SIGCOV would still need to be met, but not the stricter AUD element. (On a separate note, and with a respectful nod to WP:OSE, none of the other 22 pages in Category:Historical societies in California are as well sourced as this one -- do we really want to delete content on these valuable educational institutions?) Cbl62 (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  the difference between profit vs non-profit is in how it is registered with the relevant tax authorities in the jurisdiction where it is located. There absolutely is plenty of nonprofit advert articles. Have a look at Habitat for Humanity Canada as an example. Graywalls (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I just did my best to give input and will be happy with whatever result y'all decide. So what follows is just more "doing my best" discussion. There is a fundamental difference....the mission of one is to make money, the mission of the other is something else. I had considered a few things in addition to those expressed by Cbl62. An article on a profit making corporation is more likely to have maxed out (regarding sources etc.) because typically they tend to have somebody 'working the (Wikipedia) system whereas a non profit is more likely to have additional not-included sources. Also my take ( Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works ) that the notability system does factor in to what degree is the topic enclyclopedic and so I consider it to be legitimate to take that into consideration. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Carmel Valley Histocial Society has significant coverage in media at the regional level and is a member of the Conference of California Historical Society and the Carmel Chamber of Commerce. Mulitple independent and reliable sources are available. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  GregmHenderson, which regional source(s) have significant coverage of CVHA, the association, rather than the Carmel Valley History Center, which it established and supports financially? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  CVHA maintains memberships with several notable organizations, including the Conference of California Historical Society, the Carmel Valley Chamber of Commerce, and the Monterey County Free Libraries. These affiliations offer extensive coverage of CVHA's local center and museum while also highlighting its resource base. Furthermore, CVHA enjoys partnerships with various institutions, such as the Carmel Valley Association, Carmel Valley Locals, California Revealed, and numerous others. Newspaper mentions of CVHA can be found in publications from Petaluma, Salinas, and Sacramento. Greg Henderson (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Of the first three sources you listed, only the Monterey County Free Libraries had any references to CVHS that were not references to the Society's web page, and that only lists CVHS as the publisher of 10 of the 12 books listed. "Newspaper mentions" don't sound like significant coverage... — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The citations have "Significant coverage" that addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content and is the main topic of the source material. Please see Carmel Valley Historical Society, Internet Archive, and Monterey County Weekly for more details. Historical societies like CVHS is an organization dedicated to preserving, collecting, researching, and interpreting historical information or items. Regional societies should not be dismissed simply because they lack the widespread recognition of larger state societies, such as the California Historical Society. It's important to note that CVHS operates within the Western United States and serves as a significant county-level society. Information about CVHS and its historical records for Carmel Valley, California should be readily available to anyone consulting an encyclopedia. Greg Henderson (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, the Carmel Valley Historical Society struggles to find permanent site for archive.No Place Like Home article gives signigficant coverage to CVHS. However, this listing contains info from CVHS's website, as does this listing. Not enough significan coverage, definitely not meeting WP:AUD, as the Monterey County Weekly is a small, local newpaper. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2023 (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.