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 keep. Improvements to the article have lead to the nomination, and most of the delete !votes, being withdrawn. Mkativerata (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carter House Inn

[edit]

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

A structure built in 1982 as a replica of a building doesn't pass notability. This is just another B&B advert. JaGa^talk 18:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was intending to argue keep -- as soon as I saw the picture, I knew exactly where this building was, even though I live several hundred miles away. But Google is not turning up notability. Admittedly, some of the articles behind pay walls may turn up notability, but what I can access isn't coming up with anything I can use.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Unlikely to be notable as architecture. --Elekhh (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw delete as referencing has been improved. --Elekhh (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ (Changing to Keep, see below) Non-historic building, spammy article. However, there is a lot of coverage about it in the local paper, the Times-Standard [1] [2], with an occasional mention in more notable publications like the San Francisco Chronicle. And its restaurant gets a Grand Award from Wine Spectator Magazine, which is fairly rare. With a major rewrite (which somebody else can do - I don't have time) this article might become a keeper. --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a replica of a Newsom and Newsom home. These two brothers were premier architects in California in the 19th Century. A re-work to limit the article to the details of the architecture (removing most of the focus on the business), which is also significant as an Eastlake/Queen Anne home is relevant to the Wiki and should be covered. Notability as a reconstruction is already present in the article and the home exists within Old Town Eureka. As a matter of architecture detail, the stacked bay windows are an excellent example of Eastlake Architecture. Despite a busy schedule, I have already done some work to improve the article before. Norcalal (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The decision whether to keep or delete an article is not based on bare assertions about the subject. Also, the fact that it was based on a design by notable architects (do the Newsoms have an article here?) does not alone make it notable. What is needed is WP:Reliable sources supporting the subject's notability. I have provided some links above that could be used. If you are in a mood to improve/rescue the article, that is what it needs: Reliable Sources in the article, demonstrating significant coverage and therefore notability. Changing the spammish tone would help too. If you do add better sourcing, please let us know here, so that people who have already expressed an opinion may reconsider. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have wondered since I came across the article....that if it is a premier lodging for the entire region and most critically acclaimed restaurant of the region (perhaps on the entire California coast north of the SF Bay Area) as well how do we treat that here without looking like a travel guide. I believe there is reason to save the article. Also, I do not think the Carters (owners) want this article to be in bad taste since they are so well known for their taste. Being from the region, I wondered who wrote the mess in the first place. I will look at it more as my schedule allows. And pare it down to notability issues that can have support of reliable sourcing Norcalal (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See improvements and deletions. I have little time at the moment for a total rewrite. Norcalal (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Revamped Article for Your Reconsideration: A lot of time the issue with these nominations is not the underlying topic, but a really poorly done article. I think that was the case here. The following has been revised:
- Promotional tone removed.
- Article clearly focuses on notability with both restaurant (more so) and architecture (less so).
- Additional citations added and all are now formatted.
- Article Wikified with layout and content.
- These changes are on top of the improvements already undertaken by Norcalal.

The article still has a ways to go quite honestly though. For instance, one of the sources in the architecture section is the company website. But, there are several editors who have shown an interest in the last year and it no longer reads like a B&B advert. RevelationDirect (talk) 07:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. I'm OK with withdrawing the nom. --JaGa^talk 08:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the improvements made in the article and its sourcing. --MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think my vote is implied by my post but, just in case. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:41, 27 January 2011 (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.