Talk:James Franklin Devendorf

Removal of low-quality blog with "Sponsored Content" used as a source

I have removed the following source from the article [1], not only is it someone's wordpress blog, it clearly states "Sponsored Content" at the bottom of the page. Netherzone (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Between this article, Carmel Development Company, and Carmel Development Company Building, I suppose there's enough cruft that can be thrown out, and puff and fluff that can be comfortably condensed into one article. The decision is, which one should we keep? Graywalls (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree the three articles all need to go into one article. The fact that there are several is a indication this is part of the walled garden. I would think that the host article would be the one that actually has the most SIGCOV as defined by Wikipedia. It's unclear if the Building is actually on the Calif. Register of Historic... or if it just got nominated and this is puffery. If it's not, the building should be merged with the Company. Maybe both partners in the company, Devendorf and Powers, get merged into the Company also, as long as the company clearly meet's WP:NCORP's strict criteria. Netherzone (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls, I just had a deeper look at Carmel Development Company, and it seems to be an NCORP fail. Check the sources - most are just name checks, others are actually about Devendorf himself, some don't mention the company, and others are very odd, a google doc download site; what looks like a self-published paper; urls that don't match titles of books. I think Carmel Development Company should definitely be merged into this article on Devendorf, and probably the building too, as it does not seem to be on the actual California historic register nor the national register. Have you done merges, or maybe they should be redirects? I don't have a lot of experience in those areas. Netherzone (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I haven't quite settled on which one should be the one to remain. I think the first step is to carve away the overly detailed clutter with special emphasis on culling those that are poorly sourced to prepare for merger. You'll see in each of the three articles each having to talk about contents in one another. So, from perspective of WP:DUPLICATE, it would make sense to merge. One we have a target that make sense, everything can go there and all the existing page names can simply redirect there. Graywalls (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls, As it turned out, upon reviewing the Carmel Development Company Building article, I discovered that the building is NOT in fact on the California Register of Historical Resources. A proposal was made 20 years ago, but the building didn't make it to the Register, but the article was written in a way to imply that it was. Once I looked deeper into the sourcing, it became evident that it's not really an important building although it's a little interesting because it had a modern design and used a type of brick. I moved the relevant content to Carmel Development Company into its own section, retaining citations and some of the photos. So all the key content that was sourced remains (minus the fluff). I then did a "blank and redirect" so if anyone searches, they will be directed to the section in the Main article.

I defer to your judgement whether Davendorf (and possibly his parter Powers) should be redirected to the Company article or the other way around, or if it should just stay as it is once the clean up is completed. Netherzone (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why you want to delete and merge articles. The building is different than the company. The company was the cornerstone for the developemnt of Carmel-by-the-Sea. The building is a historical structure that still exists today! Greg Henderson (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Merges and redirects can be alternatives to deletion if a topic is not notable, they are not the same as deletion. It happens all the time on WP. If it turns out that both the Development Co. and the Building don't meet standards for a stand alone article, the content can be merged or redirected here, since it seems that the man is more notable than the company or building. Netherzone (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure why you're all that concerned, Greg. When a redirect is made, a search made under the original title will lead to the merged article and makes no functional difference. Graywalls (talk) 03:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

There are also several articles for Devendorf's various development projects. These can all be consolidated in either this article or the Development Company article as subsections. For example: Highlands Inn, Carmel Highlands, and others that can be found by clicking on "what links here" to view components of these various walled gardens. Netherzone (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that if they don't meet the standards for a stand alone article then merging is better than deleting. What I think you do not understand is that there may be enough information to make them into standalone articles. It all about putting in the time to do the research and provide the necessary information. I think you are too quick to delete information or even an article if you feel it does not meet the standards (yet). Why not put tags instead of deleting?

To me, it is important to differentiate between a building and a person. The infobox is different and you loose a lot of information if you merge. Wikipedia has plenty of disk space, so having seperate articles allows the article to stand by themselves. It just takes time and other editors to help expand the article and show why it is important. To me, deleting an article is the last resort!

There are hundreds of articles that have no or little citations and they are not being deleted or merged... See Category:Unreferenced BLPs and Category:Unreferenced BLPs from September 2023. Why not throw them out first. However, I do understand your point and only wish that you give these articles a chance as stand alone articles. They have so much potential for encyclopedic knowledge! Greg Henderson (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. I think it's just an excuse to indefinitely restore unsourced/poorly sourced contents based on your own essay writing. Graywalls (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Request Edit A

• Please add back the text "He married Lilliana Augusta "Lillie" Potter (1859-1940), a music teacher at the College of the Pacific in Santa Clara, California."
• Use this as the missing citation:

Greg Henderson (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done That source says she's a student, whereas the content you want to add says she's a teacher? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Removal of Info

@Graywalls: Why would you remove a ?

Why would you remove: He had a heart attack soon after this trip?

What is the best way to dispute your edits? Greg Henderson (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006:, you're already disputing it. Others who come across the talk page and holds position on this matter will comment or make changes if they feel something ought to be done. To answer your questions, 1.) The signature doesn't appear to add value, although I'm open to reconsider this. What do others feel about the signature in the infobox? I removed the reference to heart attack, because it read he had a heart attack, but it was months later he died and it is more details than needed for an encyclopedia article. Graywalls (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls: Please be so kind as to put back the signature as it is an important image of the person's signature. Devendorf was a businessman and his signature was a part of his personality. In terms of dying from a heart attack, please see this article that says he died follwing a prolong illness that culminated in heart disease (page 1). Greg Henderson (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)