Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Forest Service Architecture Group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 no consensus. After being moved and partially rewritten as Architects of the United States Forest Service, consensus has shifted towards keeping the article. The history contains a lot of problematic edit-warring between the two main participants in this discussion; this is worrying.  Sandstein  05:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United States Forest Service Architecture Group

[edit]
United States Forest Service Architecture Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: Article was moved during AFD discussion from "United States Forest Service Architecture Group" to "Architects of the United States Forest Service". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doncram (talk • contribs) 20:10, 24 July 2011

Largely original research on a topic whose notability -- and even existence -- is dubious. The "group" that is the subject of this article seems to have been 5 people who once worked for the Forest Service's Pacific Northwest Region. The sources cited do not confirm that this group actually was a formal organization nor what its actual name was, much less indicate when it existed, what its mission was, where in the Pacific Northwest it had its office, etc. Sources consist of entries in a database attributing various properties to this "group" and one document that mentions the "group" twice, once as "Architecture Group" and once as "Architectural Group," and that names its 5 members. As discussed on the article talk page, efforts to find additional information have been unsuccessful. I think that a list of National Register listings attributed to US Forest Service personnel would be a worthwhile basis for a list article (and, indeed, when I saw this new article I tried to convert it to a list, but I got reverted), but the creator of this article is adamant that the "Architecture Group" is a notable topic for an article, so here we are at AfD. Orlady (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure: Orlady has long tangled with me. Note Orlady agrees that there is a valid topic here. As discussed at Talk, I reversed Orlady's undiscussed move of article to "List of buildings and structures attributed to the United States Forest Service and its Architecture Group", which seemed like not the right title. An article about an architectural firm or design group can include a list of works; a rename can better be discussed in a Requested Move at the Talk page. I consider this AFD to be in bad faith. --doncram 17:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To address one complaint, the Northwest Regional architect group was started in 1934, per this, part of larger online book about USFS Architecture. --doncram 18:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That source says "In 1934, Regional Engineer Jim Frankland set up an architectural section headed by Tim Turner." That's hardly the same thing as the official formation of a USFS Architecture Group. --Orlady (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That source also cites "The History of engineering in the Forest Service: (a compilation of history and memoirs, 1905-1989)", which seems to discuss Turner's department of 10 people. (I just figured out the full title from Google Books). That book is not available on line. I'm asking that we don't rush to delete until we've collectively done the research. —hike395 (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no apparent sourcing for existence/mission of group outside of "architect" listings in NRHP docs.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources available are the National Register's NRIS database, and NRHP nomination documents such as offline one cited in Unity Ranger Station by editor Orygun, and such as online "Depression-Era Buildings" of OR and WA tr document. These are reliable sources already providing adequate documentation of existence of group. There will be more available too. --doncram 17:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. "More available" now includes an entire online book about USFS architecture, which would allow for development of this article to be about USFS level with subsections about regional variations, or which would support separate articles on regional groups and their works. --doncram 18:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow sorting out of a possible rename/reorganization at Talk page of article, where that was going on already.

The Northwest region architecture group, aka USDA Forest Svce. is identified in about 25 National Register NRIS database listings as the architect of record, reflecting collective design responsibility, as in architectural firms when an individual architect cannot be identified. This is echoed in other online sources derived from NRIS, which show up in Google searches. Also, one document, the "Depression-Era Buildings" of OR and WA document, provides characterization of design work of this one group as opposed to that of other Forest Service regional offices. As was being discussed at Talk page. There is adequate documentation of at least the Northwest Regional architecture group to establish its notability on its own, and to include list of its works, like for other architectural firm articles. It remains open whether one combined article should cover that group and also cover other groups, such as Region 2's group. Deletion of the article would remove useful history and development already, in article and Talk page; rename can be discussed there. --doncram 17:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The issue here is not whether the general topic of Forest Service architecture is significant or notable. You have made clear on the article talk page that this is an article about the USFS Architecture Group, not an article about USFS architecture. However, there is no solid evidence for the existence of such a group. There's even a nice online book about USFS Architecture, including a page about Tim Turner and a page about Linn Forrest (two of the architects who you say were in this supposed Architecture Group), but no indication that the USFS ever had an organization called "Architecture Group." (These appear to simply be architects who worked for the agency in different offices and capacities.) There is no evidence that the topic of this article existed. --Orlady (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care for Orlady's characterization here. There is a valid topic, or several of them. The exact name to use for an article about just the Northwest region's architecture group and its works is not obvious yet, and it is also not obvious yet whether there should be one combined article about all the USFS architecture and its regional variations, or separate articles. To assert that there is no topic seems silly. The AFD seems silly. --doncram 18:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I agree that there are serious notability issues with the article, but there's valuable material here that I don't think should be deleted (as per the advice of WP:FAILN). Let's try and work on the article longer: if after reorganizing, merging, or renaming the article, it still fails WP:N, then we can come back to AfD. —hike395 (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is the valuable information that you think should be kept?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The material that you moved to the talk page: like Orlady, I think it can be transformed or merged into reasonable standalone list article(s) —hike395 (talk) 03:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I said it could be a list, but Doncram reverted my edits when I converted it to a list article; his comments on the talk page indicate that he is determined to prove that his proposed article topic about the "Architecture Group" is notable. At any rate, that list was a database dump from NRIS; it shouldn't be real hard to recreate it in the future, if desired. --Orlady (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I disagree with Orlady's characterization. Again, I reversed Orlady's move of the article to a title starting with "List of...", because it was undiscussed and because I think the particular name he/she chose is a bad one. An article can contain a list without having "List of..." type title. --doncram 15:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I consider that some of the most worrisome information, actually. When Doncram pulls a list from the database, all he's going by is the name -- he has no idea what the association with the name actually is. See John Ross, referred to below, for a particularly nasty instance of this going wrong. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I completely disagree with SarekOfVulcan, but this is off-topic for Keep vs. Delete decision regarding this article. --doncram 15:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hardly off-topic, as it's directly relevant to whether or not the article should be kept. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Going off-topic, this AFD is about Keep or Delete. But, the material to be kept or restored includes information so far developed about architects and style of the Northwest regional architect group and a list of its works that survive and are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. And edit history to be kept is all the edit history, including the identification of there being a notable topic (or several) here. And Talk page discussion. --doncram 18:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Considering that some of the items on that list aren't even credited to the Forest Service, never mind the Forest Service Architecture Group, I don't find that a compelling argument. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • "some"? Given your comment, i look now at the removed list and see 2 items that possibly don't belong because they don't have "Forest Service" in the attribution name given: Sedona Ranger Station, Brewer Rd. S. of Hart Rd. Sedona AZ (USDA/USFS Standard Plans), NRHP-listed[1] and Shirley Field, Off US 80 Tallulah LA (USDA Delta Laboratory), NRHP-listed[1]. But the first one is a Ranger Station, so I suspect it does in fact belong, when information comes available. I appreciate your sharp eye, but the presence of one or two redlink items that eventually might get removed does not justify deletion of the article, and it does not undermine the value of having that specific list kept in edit history and talk page discussion. I think when I started this that i did a pretty exhaustive search of the 2009 version of NRIS database, finding overlapping and separate "USDA" hits as well as "Forest Service" ones, thereby ensuring a more complete list for consideration. --doncram 18:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Right. You have no idea whether the items in that list actually relate to the subject of the article, you just pulled in everything you could.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Wrong. I originally had a damn good idea that the architectural group or groups of the US Forest Service were worth a Wikipedia article, based on variations being among the most frequently credited architects of NRHP-listed places. Which turns out to be spot-on. I did not then know how exactly the USFS architectural work was split up into units or how its organization might have changed over time. I still don't know whether or not the "USDA Delta Laboratory" item was designed by a different group or whether one of these architectural groups did that one item. So sue me. Your sharp eye identifying outliers to question is truly appreciated by me, but wholesale deletion of article and wholesale removal of all of a large list, for sake of one or two questions, seems not helpful. --doncram 19:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • You shouldn't be starting articles before you have assembled enough information about the topic(s) to write coherent declarative sentences about the topic that you can back up with references to reliable sources. Why does this remind me of that article you started about an architect who did important work in both Grand Forks and Davenport, but turned out to be two completely different people? --Orlady (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I disagree with Orlady's views. I was also thinking about the John Ross architect case, where it turned out John W. Ross (Iowa architect) and John W. Ross (North Dakota architect) turned out to be different persons, both notable. That happens, as someone else noted in the AFD that SarekOfVulcan opened about it. There can be some confusion which takes a little time to sort out. A closer example is Linn A. Forrest article, about architect in the Forest Service group who worked in both Oregon and then in Alaska, but is not the same person as son who is still alive. First sources might not clarify, which is no big deal, not cause for an AFD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John W. Ross closed KEEP. Get over it. --doncram 21:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's a history of the architecture of the Forest Service which lists some of the architects involved. I haven't read through that entire document, though. I'm not sure if the architecture group is notable within a general context outside of the existing Forest Service articles. It seems to me that unless there was a cohesiveness of design and a sense that all of these architects worked together, the architecture group isn't notable as a standalone article. Compare this group to Office of the Supervising Architect, which supervised the design of a number of buildings of similar functions and design elements. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I've skimmed parts of that online book. The Forest Service definitely has employed a number of architects in its history, but (as I noted above) that book does not indicate that there ever was an organization called the "Architecture Group." Most of the architects appear to have worked in Region offices. It appears that the first architect was hired in one of the Region offices in the 1920s. During the CCC years, some of the regions had several architectural professionals on staff. Apparently only one architect ever worked in the agency Washington headquarters, but he created a lot of standard plans used around the country. None of this indicates the existence of the organization described in this article. --Orlady (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The cited reference makes it clear that one "Architecture Group" or "Architectural Group" (possibly the same as an "Architecture Group" or "Architectural Section") existed for the Pacific Northwest region, but as Hike395 pointed out, that doesn't necessarily constitute "significant coverage" under WP:GNG. It's not clear whether these were officially constituted or ad hoc groups; furthermore, some online searching suggests that other Forest Service regions also had "architectural sections," so "United States Forest Service Architecture Group" may be as ambiguous as saying "State Department of Transportation". Creating pages that conflate multiple entities through carelessness is not a good thing.
Right now, this is pretty much a textbook violation of WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." It isn't clear what the scope of the article should be, what location it should exist at, or how it should be adequately balanced. There is no point in writing this article, or any article, until those questions can be answered. Given that the information in the article is basically derivative of the linked NRIS document and could easily be re-created from it, I think it's safe to delete. Choess (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename. This is misinformation. There simply is no such organization as the United States Forest Service Architecture Group. This appears to be about one small section within one region. I will try to edit the article to make that clear. Station1 (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

**At this point, the article does not seem worth keeping. I recommend delete and restarting a new article. Something like Cascadian architecture style? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hike395 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 21 July 2011

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is no sigfnificant coverage about this Architecture Group to establish notability, and in fact, I'm not even convinced it meets verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have been reworking the article towards it being renamed to Architects of the United States Forest Service, with subsections Region 6, to which USDA Forest Svce. Architecture Group redirects, and subsection Region 2 to which USDA Forest Service, Region 2 redirects. Orlady, perhaps not understanding, has seen fit to re-redirect the Region 6 item, which i then reverted. There are about 25 places specifically attributed to the Region 6 group by explicit name USDA Forest Svce. Architecture Group. Go ahead, google that exact phrase, and you will see a lot of hits. It is, in practice, an alternative name of the Region 6 group, and it should redirect to the section of this combined article, or to a separate article on the Region 6 group if multiple articles are to be split out. --doncram 03:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Orlady fully understood your intent and was thoroughly convinced that you were wrong. "Svce." is a common abbreviation for "service," not a special blessed code word created by the Gods of the NRIS database to signify "Region 6." And the chance that anyone searching for USFS Region 2 would be expecting to find an architecture article is vanishingly slim; I retargeted that one to point to the "Regions" subsection of the USFS article. --Orlady (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per that and its nasty-toned edit summary, i stand corrected. Orlady was not accidentally being unreasonable, she was deliberately being so. There are in fact about 25 National Register places, covered in Wikipedia and in many other sources using National Register info, that refer to the Region 2 architect group by that exact name. There are no different uses of that exact name. Way to be obtuse about development of wikipedia, to prevent link from working properly to bring people to the relevant point. More evidence of silliness of the AFD in general. --doncram 14:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, of course, since you put {{Under construction}} on the article, nobody is supposed to touch it or delete the article until you're done with it, right? --Elkman (Elkspeak) 05:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tag says "You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not my interpretation. I interpret it the same as a database lock, to mean that nobody else should be editing the article. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, SarekOfVulcan. Yes other editors are indeed welcome to edit, as the tag indicates and was meant by me. Elkman, the article is developing somewhat and I think it now establishes that there was "cohesiveness of design and a sense that all of these architects worked together", your condition stated above for whether an article on this topic is acceptable to you. Your !vote Keep would be appreciated. --doncram 19:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't respond to canvassing or pleading. Don't count on me to give you a keep vote. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Architects of the U.S. Forest Service or Architecture of the U.S. Forest Service. Much of the controversy here seems to stem from concern as to whether a specific sub-group of Forest Service architects based in the Pacific Northwest has notability. That is debatable. What appears to be clear is that the architects (and architecture) of the U.S. Forest Service made important contributions to American architectural history, particularly in the period from the 1930s to the 1950s. In this diff], User:Orygun expressed a similar view on the article's Talk page. He pointed to an excellent source on the subject, history of Forest Service architecture, which I have used to create and article on Keplar B. Johnson. Orygun also pointed to the National Museum of Forest Service History as another potential source for developing the subject. Much of what has been written in the existing article would form a nice base for a broader article using one of the titles suggested above. For these reasons, I suggest a "move" of the useful material rather than a "delete." Cbl62 (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support move Article has come back: this would be useful to our readers if renamed instead of deleted —hike395 (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to avoid semantic difficulties with the name. It's clear to me that the U.S. Forest Service built a huge lot of interesting things over a relatively long period of time. Quite a few of those things seem likely to have featured in various media (travel and tourism media in particular) as well as the architecture trade press. That's notable. Pick a topic name that reflects that notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cbl62, Hike395, and Stuartyeates. I prefer the name to include "Architects", as in Architects of the U.S. Forest Service or Architects of the United States Forest Service, supporting focus in the article upon the individuals and groups of architects working together. That way it serves need in related articles to link to this article on the architects, where they mention the USDA Forest Service Architecture Group or variations as being the designer of a given place. --doncram 18:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on moving I am semi-boldly moving the article now, to support making DYK nomination at the title Architects of the United States Forest Service. The DYK will not be accepted until this AFD is closed, I presume, but I want to put in the nomination now. This move does not preclude a further move to a different title later, if a different consensus emerges in this AFD, but I would hope the DYK could be achieved first. --doncram 19:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Surely this is worthwhile to people who need to know about this subject. Paul Musgrave (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)r[reply]
  • Keep as a notable topic with good soiurces, though I would prefer the title architecture of the Forests Service DGG ( talk ) 07:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Move to Architecture of the U.S. Forest Service (or Buildings of the US Forest Service or similar title) - In focusing on the architects the article overly relies on "Inherited notability" - ie the idea that: If the buildings are notable, the architects must be notable as well. This idea has long been rejected at Wikipedia. What is needed are sources that discuss "the group". This is addressed at WP:GNG which says: Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. We appear to have sources on the buildings and their architecture, and perhaps some sources on some of the individual architects, but none on the architects as a group. Blueboar (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Architecture" would be an appropriate title and scope for an article, but "Architects" is not. Much of the Forest Service's architecture, particularly in the early years, was not designed by architects (for example, much was designed by draftsmen or the builders themselves) and, particularly in recent times, it was not designed by Forest Service personnel (this is clear, for example, from the report on LEED contracting that Doncram has been eager to include in the Further reading section). Furthermore, most of the individual architects who did work for the Forest Service were fairly anonymous civil-service employees, but their architecture is well documented. I note that my initial involvement with this article was an effort to repurpose it with a focus on the buildings rather than the alleged organization, and came to AfD after the article's creator insisted on an article about the organization. This AfD was started after seeing Doncram's reaction to my following comment on the talk page:
You have created an article about a small government organization that probably never existed under the name you have given it here, and about which you have only the slightest amount of information. I'm trying to decide between (1) moving this page to your user space, (2) taking it to AfD, or (3) simply slapping notability and original research templates on the article. You could, however, prevent any and all of these outcomes by voluntarily moving the page to your user space until you have obtained and documented some solid information on which to base an encyclopedic article on whatever topic turns out to be appropriate.
Doncram's reply (in part, that he resented my "butting in" and that "there is merit in starting an article about an architectural group of the U.S. government that is notable, just as there is for notable private architectural firms, and sooner is basically better than later") led me to start this AfD. --Orlady (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment - another possibility would be to merge the information into National Forest Service (appropriate since presumably each of these people were employees of that agency). Or (perhaps even better) to split the information up... merging the bio information on the architects to the NFS article, and the information about the buildings to an article specifically about NFS buildings. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The suggested merger into United States Forest Service would not be a wise idea. Buildings (historic or otherwise) are peripheral to the USFS mission, and detailed content about matters such as the architectural styles of 1930s ranger stations would overwhelm the article about the agency. --Orlady (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Orlady: please don't merge this with United States Forest Service. There is far too much detail here. WP:SUMMARYSTYLE would work best: a paragraph in the main article, with a {{main}} pointing here. —hike395 (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
United States Forest Service is approaching the point where it's already had to have section promoted to their own ages (i.e. History of the United States Forest Service); merging substantial content in won't help.Stuartyeates (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My 2 cents on naming. As noted above, I think either "Architects of ..." or "Architecture of ..." would be acceptable. I do lean slightly in favor of "Architecture of ... " This would cover the topic most broadly and allow for the fullest treatment of the topic. If the article becomes too big, then a split could be done at that time. Cbl62 (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Perhaps I am not looking in the right places, but I don't think the concept of "Architects of the United States Forest Service" exist outside of Wikipedia. I feel like we have, out of purely good intentions, invented an organization that simply does not exist. Moving forward, the buildings may be noteworthy enough to establish pages for some of the individual architects, but the article really must be deleted. The problem with a rename, move or merger is that the article is not about a thing. It is about an artificial category that we created. Djohns21 (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are entitled to an opinion, but what about 25 works of architecture that are credited to U.S. Forest Service Architecture Group, meaning the Pacific Northwest Region 6 group of architects, for which there are many references? This article as now written is about that group and other architects of the Forest Service, with a number of sources. It seems like a good article to have, in part to link to from pages about the places designed by these groups, as these are like private architectural firms that have collective credit for various works not attributable to specific individual architects. --doncram 03:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that's original research to claim that that particular title always refers to those particular architects. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty much my exact point. Go to google and search for U.S. Forest Service Architecture Group in quotes. I got 0 results. When I did it with United States Forest Service Architecture Group, I got only wikipedia and mirror sites. We keep capitalizing it like it is a proper noun. There is not, and never has been any organization, government agency, or club, refereed to as the U.S. Forest Service Architecture Group. As to the Pacific Northwest Region 6, it certainly exists, and architects surely work there. However, if you read the sources you will notice they use the phrase Region 6 as a location, as in I live in Region 6, not a group. If there is a need for an article about the architecture itself, we should write that. This article not only allows the individual architects to inherit noteworthiness from the buildings, it then puts them as the focus of the article.
To SarekOfVulcan and to Djohns21. Google searching on exactly ' "USDA Forest Svce. Architecture Group" -wikipedia ' currently yields 77 hits, most from www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com and other sites that are not mirrors of wikipedia, but rather are using information from the National Register's public domain NRIS database. Every instance relates to the 25 OR and WA places that were listed for their architecture designed by the architecture group of Region 6 and credited with exactly "USDA Forest Svce. Architecture Group" in the National Register as their architect. Consistent with the MPS/TR document explaining that they were joint works of architects of Region 6.
SarekOfVulcan asserts it is Original Research to say that the phrase "USDA Forest Svce. Architecture Group" applies to the Region 6 group. What other group does it refer to???
Djohns21 asserts there is no such group. Seriously, what about all the references identifying it and explaining about the group, when it was formed, who were its members, and so on???
I think the term "USDA Forest Svce. Architecture Group" was coined, but by the National Register, not by wikipedia editors. There could be a wikipedia article on that group alone, i.e. the Region 6 group, as there are enough sources for that, but I prefer to cover it in a larger article covering the other groups and individual architects of the Forest Service. It is proper in the wikipedia article to mention the term and explain what it refers to (the Region 6 group) and where in proper noun form it seems to have been derived from (by its usage in the National Register listings). It is proper in wikipedia to have a redirect from "USDA Forest Svce. Architecture Group" and variations to the Region 6 section of this article.
Come on people, please get it together and stop with the contradictory claims. --doncram 11:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll "get it together" to respond to your ridiculous assertions.
"Svce." is a common abbreviation for "Service." Abbreviations often are used in database because they are short -- and database structures often require or reward brevity. The need for brevity in database entries is one of many reasons why you should not be attempting to craft entire articles solely on the basis of database entries.
You acknowledge that those 77 Google hits on "USDA Forest Svce. Architecture Group" are 77 hits on sites that use the NRIS database output -- that's 77 hits on that one source, not 77 separate sources. Additionally, the fact that a particular text string appears multiple times in a database is not sufficient to make that text string a notable topic.
I can't detect any basis, other than some creative synthesis on your part, for the theory that the string "USDA Forest Svce. Architecture Group" uniquely refers to an organization in Forest Service Region 6. Synthesis is original research.
You seem to be asking those of us who question the existence of the "Forest Service Architecture Group" to prove our theory that it did not (or does not) exist. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. If you want Wikipedia to host an article about this group, it is up to you to convincingly demonstrate (through reliable sources) not only that your topic exists (or existed), but that it is notable. As I stated earlier on this page, the statement "In 1934, Regional Engineer Jim Frankland set up an architectural section headed by Tim Turner" falls far short of documenting the official formation of a USFS Architecture Group, much less the establishment of "USDA Forest Svce. Architecture Group" as an official organization in Forest Service Region 6. Your other sources include a document that mentions this "group" twice, once as "Architecture Group" and once as "Architectural Group," and one architect's description of working with other architects in the region, including a statement that "our design team received awards..." The documentation does not convincingly demonstrate that this "group" ever existed, and it definitely does not indicate notability for the group. --Orlady (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also a note on the sources. Sources 3 and 4 attribute the buildings to the Civilian Conservation Corps which already has a thorough and well sourced article. If the buildings were built by the CCC, then this article should be severely reduced and merged to give credit where credit is due.––Djohns21 (talk) 05:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the OR, WA, and AZ ranger stations in this article were designed by architects of the USDA Forest Service for building by the Civilian Conservation Corps. That is not an argument against there being an article on the architects and architectural groups of the U.S. Forest Service. --doncram 11:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Listing as the architets of record in NRHP listings seems to be about as airtight a confirmation of a coherent group as is possible. If it is felt that the content is better served through its inclusion in a broader article on Forest Service architecture, then I would also support a merge, but definitely not a delete. VIWS talk
Vanisaac, are you aware that the "listing as architects of record" that is relied upon in this article consists only of the entries in a particular field of an electronic database -- and that this database field can include architects and builders? The actual individual National Register nomination documents that I have looked at (examples: https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NRHP/86000820_text, https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NRHP/86000837_text, https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NRHP/86000843_text) do not contain any indication of an architect of record. --Orlady (talk) 04:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The National Register database lists the architect as "USDA Forest Svce. Architecture Group" for several buildings in the Depression-Era Buildings TR in Oregon and Washington. "USDA Forest Service" is listed as the architect for several buildings in the Depression-Era USDA Forest Service Administrative Complexes in Arizona MPS. "USDA Forest Service, Region 2" is listed as the architect for the buildings in Depression-Era USDA Forest Service Administrative Complexes on Medicine Bow NF MPS. There are other multiple property submissions that list "U.S. Forest Service" or some variation, as well as a number of individual properties not part of multiple property submissions. The three documents Orlady cited are part of the Oregon and Washington MPS. I'm going to look at the MPS to see if those actually list an architect. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 05:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is clear evidence there was some organization of architectures with the US Forest Service organized in 1934 that created buildings that were included in the national register. The exact name of the arfticle is another question, but having an article on this is clearly worthwhile.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/United_States_Forest_Service_Architecture_Group&oldid=1074285137"