Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Fox Building

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Fox Building

[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)

It does not meet presumed notability under WP:NBUILD and while it might mean something in the local community, it's just a run of the mill old building that doesn't warrant an encyclopedia article and the sources don't meet the threshold of independent significant coverage needed for for GNG. This appears to be a part of the broader walled garden on Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA buildings/subject matter. Graywalls (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, United States of America, and California. Graywalls (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of the two book sources, the first falls under WP:ARCADIA and consists only of a photo and its caption. The second is some hyperlocal press (possibly the same as Paper Vision Press / Western Tanager Press?) and has only two passing mentions. This level of coverage is not significant and not enough for WP:GNG, even setting aside the Carmel-related issues. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Of the four sources available, we've got two primary source government documents and two books from unreliable publishers. Left guide (talk) 07:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The comments above are the valid default criticisms of the Carmelopedia. Axad12 (talk) 08:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. It’s another example of how a person can write a bunch of articles on local subjects that got local news coverage but fail WP:N. Bearian (talk) 03:48, 15 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.