Talk:The Tuck Box

Tuck Box - Notability

@Left guide: The Tuck Box is one of the most notable of all the buildings in in Carmel. Just read the history and you will see that it is notable. Google Scholar has this list of books: here. The more you delte as "highly questionable source" the less information is available to the reader. There has been no determination that Arcadia Publishing is not a WP:RSP. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Which specific sources from that search do you believe are GNG-worthy? So far, many of these building articles are relying mainly on Carmel Pine Cone to support notability; we're gonna need a lot more than that. And as for Arcadia, there is clearly no consensus that it is reliable in the way you seem to think it is, and it also frequently has serious WP:COISOURCE issues. You had your chance to argue your position at the RSN thread you started but failed to gain consensus, so you will have to demonstrate evidence of reliability on a case-by-case basis per WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS. Left guide (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The first three are from secondary sources. Looks like the discussion did not come to any conclusion. At best, Arcadia Publishing reliability should be assessed on a case by case basis, not unilaterally disregarded. Again, it is not listed on the not a WP:RSP.

You are deleting large chunks of text with citations stating "highly questionable sources". This does not seem to a good enough reason to delete important information about the building. If this issue is not resolved promptly, I intend to escalate it to WP:DISPUTE. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, that's what I said in my first reply. Per WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS which are policy clauses, you are responsible for proving that the Arcadia sources are reliable for each application you wish to include, which you haven't yet done. There's literally no dispute to escalate; you being taken to task to follow fundamental content policy does not count as a "dispute" in any real sense of the word. Once you have supplied evidence of reliability, we can ping the main group of editors who patrol the articles you've created, and seek community consensus. We already litigated Dramov as an author at RSN and on multiple talk pages, and there are WP:COISOURCE issues that make her work highly problematic for our purposes (and the two Arcadia citations I removed from this article are authored by her).

You offered the first three results from Google Scholars, and they are all questionable at best in terms of GNG-worthiness. They include a government document, and two books published by Arcadia. And that doesn't even yet touch on WP:SIGCOV. Left guide (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

So, you are asking for evidence of reliability. For Dramov's book Historic Buildings of Downtown Carmel-by-the-Sea, it was reviewed by Craig MacDonald here. He says: "Dramov proves her statement with an in-depth look at who created this Fairy Tale-type spot by researching many structures, architects, builders, politicians, celebrities and others." Does this review help to establish reliability? Greg Henderson (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The review link you provided looks like a self-published tourist site, so I don't see how that site on its own is qualified to confer Dramov with reliability for WP:RS purposes. So we'd have to scrutinize the author; who is Craig MacDonald? And what qualifies him to confer Dramov with reliability for WP:RS purposes? Pinging @Graywalls, Melcous, and Netherzone: As a partial aside, the Architectural Digest piece mentioned in the beginning of that review would probably be a very good source for Carmel topics if you're able to track it down. Left guide (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

See Craig MacDonald- Historian, Journalist, Author. He has done 80 book reviews. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

That's 80 book reviews on that self-published site, which carries virtually no weight. There are actually much stronger claims made on his bio there and his site goldrushglimpses.com that might be helpful if they can be corroborated by reliable sources. Left guide (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Also just to be clear, Dramov won't be able to count towards notability on Carmel-related topics due to the well-documented WP:COISOURCE problems, so it's impossible for her to be a fully independent source. This would only be a case for establishing reliability to add material to an already-notable topic. Left guide (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Where are the well-documented COI problems for Dramov?

What about Monica Hudson and Kent Seavey? Greg Henderson (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

This was in the RSN discussion you started and basically every other talk page discussion we've had about Arcadia. Netherzone is the one who furnished the evidence of Dramov's COI. You will need to prove that those other two authors are reliable if you wish to make a case. I will say though that I've seen the name "Kent Seavey" as an author on many Carmel city documents you've used which means that person likely works for the city, so it seems doubtful that Seavey can be considered an independent author for notability purposes. Left guide (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Great discussion. I appreciate your feedback!

Here is a start of a table we can use to keep track of sources and if they count toward WP:GNG:

Source assessment table:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
1	The source is a noted book by a well-known author, Alissandra Dramov, with a book review here.	? Dramov may have a vested interest in promoting the historical homes, mansions, and buisinesses.	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	? Unknown
2	The source is a noted book by a well-known author, Kent Seavey, with book review here About Kent Seavey	? Seavey as an author on many Carmel city documents, which means he likely works for the city, so it seems doubtful that Seavey can be considered an independent author	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Greg Henderson (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

References