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 merge‎ to List of Historic Buildings in Carmel-by-the-Sea. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Leidig Building (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Does not appear to meet notability criteria. WP:GEOFEAT makes clear that buildings on national heritage registers can be presumed to be notable. There is not such presumption for those on a state list like this one. <Edit: this building is not on the state list, it was simply nominated 22 years ago> That means WP:NBUILDING requires WP:SIGCOV - here there is the application for state listing, plus two single line mentions in other local sources. Melcous (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge salient details >> List of Historic Buildings in Carmel-by-the-Sea Djflem (talk) 06:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Satisfies the WP:NBUILDING and WP:GNG guidelines as a result of its historic, social, economic, or architectural importance using reliable secondary and primary sources.
• The property is significant under the California Register of Historical Resources registration criterion 4, in the history of the local area, as a commercial architecture development in downtown Carmel, mixing Monterey colonial style with Spanish Colonial Revival.
• This building is also part of a block of commercial buildings on Dolores Street, between Ocean Avenue and 7th Avenue, that demonstrate Carmel's historic commercial development in the 1920s.
• The Isabel Leidig Building is an important commercial building in the Carmel-by-the-Sea's Downtown Conservation District Historic Property Survey, and was nominated and submitted to the National Register of Historic Places on April 25, 2002.
• Clicking on this link for Isabel Leidig Building, will bring up the historical study that was done for the building. Long and rather extensive. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Historic Buildings in Carmel-by-the-Sea. The historical listing is via a large collective of buildings and not for this individual building. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - I'm in agreement with the nom, and comments by GPL93, and Djflem above. This California Spanish colonial revival style building is like thousands of others in the state; not all of them are Wiki-notable. Does not pass WP:GEOFEAT, nor WP:NBUILDING, and is not on the NRHP. Seems it is on local registries that were nominated along with a group of many other buildings; we don't need articles on all of those 100+ buildings - WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE. An appropriate target for a merger would be List of Historic Buildings in Carmel-by-the-Sea. Netherzone (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Historic Buildings in Carmel-by-the-Sea. This is one of over 100 buildings in the city's Downtown Conservation District that are collectively listed on the California Register of Historical Resources. Being just one building in a historic downtown or historic block does not show to me that it needs a standalone article. Being nominated – as part of a 100+ property district – to the National Register of Historic Places is entirely irrelevant when the district was not actually listed on the register. When the only substantial source is the survey of the district that presents all the buildings together, we should do the same when individual notability is not established. Reywas92^Talk 16:01, 30 January 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.