Draft talk:Mary L. Hamlin

Article moved to draft

@Graywalls: Why was this article moved to draft space? Your only comment was it reads like an advertisement. Usually, that is just a tag (template). What would you like to see done before it can be moved back to the article space? I would like to work with you on this but need some guidance. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments left by Timtrent on your talk page should give you a clue. I can't give you hand holding on article-by-article case-by-case occurrence. It should be pretty obvious. Graywalls (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Graywalls: Thank you for moving this to draft space instead of marking it for deletion. I now have an opportunity to rewrite it to show notability. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006 Neither can I offer draft by draft, article by article handholding. However, I have left a comment on the draft page with my concerns, which remain even after you and Graywalls have simplified the draft. I think you are wasting material. Drafts only have to assert and verify true notability. I believe you can find material to create a well crafted, tightly written, brief stub on each.

By way of example, may I suggest you read Elsie Reasoner Ralph. She has a strong (verified) claim to notability. It is brief, and very tight. Three citations for one fact is a thing I deprecate, but they are there, added by another. Since I do not mother articles, I have ignored that. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Excellent advice! Your example is helpful. I like the idea of splitting the article into multiple drafts. Thank You! Greg Henderson (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Timtrent:, I think WP:MERGE, WP:FAILN are quite relevant and a farm of Carmel-by-the-Sea WP:WALLEDGARDEN articles can be stripped out of intricate spurious details and consolidated into much fewer concise articles. If you've seen the articles in the walled garden, you'll see they're highly duplicative, for example, building articles boasting about people and their other projects, buildings, being next door to other buildings or things associated with people. When you look in people associated with those articles, you'll then find extensive coverage on buildings and other people. Graywalls (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hamlin founded two historic buildings that are listed on the city's Inventory of Historic Resources and one is on Downtown Conservation District Historic Property Survey document. Both have been nominaed to the California Register of Historical Resources. Greg Henderson (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Graywalls I will leave this draft to another reviewer. I believe that there might be merit in an outing to mainspace for the current version, but further draftification from mainspace would not, I think, be appropriate.

@Greghenderson2006 may I suggest you edit for total simplicity. I will not comment about notability, except to say that your only job in this draft is to prove that WP:BIO is passed. Anything else is not required. Indeed I suggest you cut, cut, and cut again, and then, assuming acceptance, sit on your hands and allow others to do as they see fit 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 01:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I appreciate them. I'll look at cutting what I can. Greg Henderson (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Graywalls, you replied to my AFC comment

AFC comments have a habit of becoming malformed when folk review or comment using the AFC Helper script, so I will reply here.

I have suggested to the creating editor that there is potential material for individual articles on the person and on the various buildings. You have pointed out correctly that each item, person and buildings, must pass WP:GNG in its own right, on its own merits, to have an article. I believe I have interpreted your words correctly. If not I apologise and am open to correction.

We are both correct in my view.

There is nothing to say that a Draft should not be created for each. Creating a draft on any topic is allowed, whether that topic be notable or not, verified or not, verifiable or not. It is the migration of that draft to mainspace which triggers WP:N and WP:V.

We expect an AFC reviewer to accept any draft which, in their belief, has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. We also expect any editor to have an opinion on the new mainspace article, and, where appropriate, to propose one of our three deletion processes. WP:DRAFTIFY is likely inappropriate for an AFC acceptance. That editor may also decide to ignore and/or improve the new article.

This means that I stand by my opinion that the might be multiple drafts spawned from this article. I am content that they may not be accepted. What I am advising the creating editor to do is to remove much or the clutter that the non biographical elements are causing, especially where they may give rise to a false feeling of notability for the biographical subject. Her notability must stand on its own merits. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Although as you know, AfD on Greg articles always get drawn out and they're a major WP:TIMESINK Graywalls (talk) 09:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Graywalls While you may be correct, the drafts may never get as far as mainspace. That does not mean that they should not be attempted.

To prevent timesinkery I feel that contributions at a deletion discussion should almost always be 'fire and forget', which holds true unless something exciting comes to light. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

That works until article creator comes back, continue to introduce boat load of trivia, primary sources, news column sourced contents to fluff it up to create an appearance of notability which may influence new comers. Graywalls (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Reply to AfC comments

• Comment: In addition to prior comments, the source from citation #6 has been challenged in good faith - This source has been removed.
• Comment: Three of the sources are the same publication, Carmel Pine Cone which is a local source and only one has in-depth coverage about Hamlin. The others are not in-depth.Per WP:SIGCOV sources vary in quality and depth of coverage. Multiple sources have been provided to show Hamlin was an important figure and played a significant role in the early development of Carmel-by-the-Sea, before the city was incorporated. The period of historical significance is from 1908 through the 1930s
• Comment: This figure does not seem to meet WP:N. She is of antiquarian interest to those interested in local genealogy and businesses, and the sourcing reflects that.Per WP:BASIC, Hamlin has received significant coverage in multiple published primary and secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. These include articles by Neal Hotelling and numerous primary sources, that demonstrate the works she created have become into noteworthy landmarks, leaving a lasting impact on the architectural landscape and historical heritage of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
• Comment: I think notability is seriously under question. The article is primarily built around the Carmel Pine Cone, a hyper-local weekly tabloid from a township of several thousand where the sale/purchase of individual homes is considered newsworthy. Of Carmel Pine Cone based sourcing, the one that is used ten times is written by Neil Hotelling. Per WP:BASIC, Hamlin was well known on the Monterey Peninsula. Neil Hotelling featued her in an article regarding the Sundial Lodge she co-founded. Other articles talk about how she played a pivotal role in founding two Carmel landmarks, the Monte Verde Inn and the Sundial Lodge.
• Comment: If this is a biography, what is List of Historic Buildings in Carmel-by-the-Sea doing at the foot the draft? If it is about the buildings, what is the details biography of Hamlin doing in the draft?, and why do they not have an article apiece. Potentially there are four drafts here. I suggest you do not submit this draft until you have split it into three buildings and one biog. Four separate drafts.The list of Historic Buildings in Carmel-by-the-Sea has been removed. This article is a biography about Draft:Mary L. Hamlin. The buildings are mentioned as part of her biography to explain the places she owned and managed. The Pine Inn and the Sundial Lodge already have a seperate articles.

Greg Henderson (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: Please read my "Reply to AfC comments" I am trying to understand your comment regarding your reason the article does not show significant coverage. I think that Mary L. Hamlin was a notable figure in the development of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California and should be recognized as such. I would rather that the article be accepted and if necessary, go through a deletion nomination so others can vote than to be rejected by a single editor. I have prvided 12 citations, which should easily satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Greg Henderson (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It has not been rejected. You are free to re-submit I will not review again, I do not think she passes WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with TRIS the sources do not meet GNG nor BASIC, including the additional ones you added. I caution against resubmitting it given you are on short rope and have received several messages about sourcing issues and wasting editor's time. S0091 (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with both Theroadislong and S0091. This draft has essentially been refbombed, and no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. There is a passing mention from the San Francisco Examiner, and everything else is Carmel Pine Cone and primary source city government documents. Also, if this wasn't clear before, multiple works from the same publisher count as only one source for notability purposes. Left guide (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Disagreements should be discussed in talk page. I don't believe it's a good idea to repeatedly submit AfC review with specific intentions praying to come across more sympathetic reviewers and repeating it with minimal change until it makes it through. Graywalls (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)