Talk:La Ribera Hotel

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Questionable sources

@Left guide, @Graywalls, TFAOI.org (Traditional Fine Arts Organization) seems to be a questionable source. It is one person's website that culls info from the web, or asks for submissions. It presents itself as a museum [1], [2] but uses a photo of the Heard Museum because it does not have a museum building itself. They list their address as: TFAO Museum of American Art, 1 Museum Place, City of Knowledge, Great State of Imagination. I can find nothing in the American Alliance of Museums (AAM)about the TFAO Museum of American Art. (I'm a member of the AAM, so can look deeper into their research resources and publications, but I'm not finding anything about TFAO.) It is set up as a 501c.3 run by one person, John Hazeldine, [3], with one person on their board (Mr. Hazeldine). When I logged into Guidestar, it lists their assets as: $0, gross receipts $0, program services $0, administration expenses $50, fundraising, $0, etc. It's used on a lot of of articles, and should probably, at some point, go to RSPN for discussion as to whether or not it should be used.

The article also uses Arcadia. Netherzone (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: Yeah, tfaoi is one of those sources I've been purging on sight if it's not bundled with anything else. Looks self-published, and I believe there was a discussion about its problems on a talk page somewhere (can't remember which). While we're here, what about askart? I've seen that pop up regularly on some of these articles, and been meaning to ask you, but just haven't gotten around to it. Left guide (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Left guide, Yes, tfaoi certainly does seem self-published and not peer-reviewed. AskArt is slightly different. It is essentially a data base for auction records which are used by gallerists and art collectors to determine the price of art on the secondary market or the value of their collection holdings. Insurance companies and appraisers also use the data when insuring works of art. There are several tiers of paid "membership" - commercial galleries, museums and similar institutions like kunsthallen and auction houses. Artists can sign up to create their own listing (user-submitted content), and galleries, institutions and auction houses can sign up for various fees to promote their works and publicize their sales for marketing purposes. See here for the user-submitted info: [4]

So AskArt is basically subscription-based user-submitted content - a primary source that is pay-to-play.

On the other hand, the information found there seems to be accurate, although often hopelessly out-of-date. Artists or galleries must be paid subscribers to update content. Things that look like "articles" or "reviews" are probably paid placement - native advertising - this includes their "Featured Artist" pieces like this: [5] which is pay-to-play.

However if a review from a good art magazine like Artforum, Art In America, Frieze, etc. is reproduced there with info on the writer, publication and date, that could be used as a secondary source. But it is more likely that one will find text that's coming directly from the galleries and art dealer which is good-faith financial COI, a primary source. I think ArtAsk is a good source for determining birth and death dates of artists, much better than things like Ancestry or Family Search (which are deprecated sources). It can also help with figuring out which and what type of collections an artist may be in. For example in the Sam Francis link above, one finds that he showed at the Museum of Modern Art in NYC in 1956. An editor could then go to the MoMA collections search engine to verify this claim, and if it checks out, then add it to the article along with the MoMA primary source (not the AskArt primary source). Hope this is helpful, sorry it's so looooong! Netherzone (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell, TFAOI does not seem to be vetted except by one person, but does not seem to have a financial COI, whereas AskArt is vetted by professions in the museum and gallery world but does have a financial COI. Netherzone (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: So is AskArt considered a WP:COISOURCE? Left guide (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider it a COISOURCE in most cases which is why I try not to use it and why I think it should be used with caution (but as above, I think it is more reliable for checking birth and death dates, and the COI would not be relevant.) There are a lot of articles on WP that do use it for other things, I think it's best practices to use it sparingly. Netherzone (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone:, I would say its safe to absolutely omit TFAOI and AskArt from notability consideration. TFAOI may not even pass WP:RS for others either. Graywalls (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

URL to the current business operations

@Netherzone and Left guide:, this article is mostly about the physical structure. I don't think it would pass notability on WP:NCORP ground for its business operation. Greg articles have been known to contain links to the CURRENT business activity that takes place at whatever history buildings they maybe. Do having links to the current business occupation serve encyclopedic merit? Graywalls (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls, I think removing the link you did was the right decision because it led to room booking, much like a link to Amazon would be a purchase link.

I'm having a look at some of the sources, and I did some investigation of the Parks & Recreation document, and how it codes buildings. This one, and many others on this document are (obviously) not on the NRHP, however there is a field at the top of each record that states NRHP Status Code. This building is coded as: 5S1/5D1. I looked that up online and found that what that code actually means is that a 5S1/5D1 building is also not on the California State Historical Registry, the code simply means that a 5S1/5D1 building is only considered "historically significant locally" - meaning the city of Carmel considers it (and scores of other buildings there because it increases tourism and property values e.g. tax dollars for the city) in their "downtown district survey". I really don't think that all buildings that are locally considered important is enough to merit either NBUILD nor NCORP. So what we have here is a bunch of local coverage, a primary source from Parks & Rec, extended photo captions in Calif Arts & Architecture, TFAOI which is unverifiable and a poor source, an Arcadia Press picture book, and three sources that are about Doris Day buying the building. Is it a beautiful hotel, I certainly imagine so, but is it notable? Netherzone (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's notable because of WP:GNG. There is no rule that says buildings must be in a historic register. -- GreenC 20:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

In 1998, author Pamela Cain called it one of the "most famous" hotels in Carmel. at Special:Diff/1246243889. and? I think this falls under unnecessary WP:TRIVIA, thus WP:UNDUE. Those wishing to restore it, please hold a discussion to justify inclusion per WP:ONUS. Courtesy ping to @Netherzone and Left guide:Graywalls (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]