Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodson Law Office and Jones Law Office

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 keep. Cirt (talk) 13:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woodson Law Office

Woodson Law Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Jones Law Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I do not see the individual notability of these buildings. These are both unremarkable vernacular 19th century buildings that happen to be located near Appomattox Court House and so within Appomattox Court House National Historical Park. One pound (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." --Doug Coldwell talk 00:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which "reliable secondary sources"? The descriptions provided by the National Parks Service websites? It is within their Park, you know - I'm sure they describe all sorts of other things which are not notable too.
Woodson Law Office is a small (12'6"x14'6") single-storey beige wooden hut with a single room containing a couple of desks. Nothing of note happened there. It is not even located on its original site any more.
Jones Law Office is another small (21'6"x17'6") single-storey single-room unpainted wooden hut, plus attic and cellar. Nothing of note happened here either. The article itself notes that "The obscure house would have hardly been noticed by any passerby of the time."
Sure, the ensemble of structures on this site probably is notable as a collection, and it may be worth breaking the ones that merit it out into separate articles, but it would be better to deal with them together in the first instance. Bluntly, in my view, these two wooden huts are not notable. Even the NPS say the "Significance Level" of these two buildings is "Contributing" - that is, they are not significant in their own right, but only together with the rest of the site.-- One pound (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is going to happen during the currency of this AfD to increase their notability? They have both been there since the 1850s (along with associated fences, well houses, etc, and 70-odd other structures listed alongside them with an equivalent level of Significance in the Register). -- One pound (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to the same as the above. No independent notability. No real information on the topic. Seems utterly redundant. Non-notable law offices and non-notable lawyers. These pages are listed by the National Park Service along with outhouses, kitchens, and fences, which would make them the equivalent of notability as part of the park. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From when I've visited Appomattox Court House NHP, I'd have to say that the articles that Doug created correspond with the major, marked buildings on the site. Brian Powell (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You do know that the markers are part of the park and not the building, and that those markers are the equivalent of museum exhibit markers, right? Do we have individual exhibits in museums as declared notable without anything special behind them? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of what the items represent. Further, I do not appreciate your condescending tone.
As I indicated my earlier comment, the structures which currently have articles are generally the major buildings on site. These are the structures which have been reconstructed are open to the public. Furthermore, they are ones which the National Park Service has found significant enough to merit discussion in the park visitor's guide and materials.
If there is enough material to justify an independent article on the structure, which I believe there either is or is likely soon to be, then I think there is no reason why the structure should not have its own article. Brian Powell (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I picked out the law offices because I thought they were particularly weak. Several others are also not notable, in my view, but I thought it would be better to test consensus before nominating them all. (2) I think merging them all together at Appomattox Court House National Historical Park would probably be the best solution, unless any of them is sufficiently importnat (such as the court house itself) to justify its own article, or summary style requires a sub-article. Or perhaps the less important buildings could be collected together at, say, Minor structures of the Appomattox Court House National Historical Park? (3) If no-one else is willing to do it, I will. Substantial chunks of these articles are essentially the same anyway, so it would be more efficient to deal with them in one place. -- One pound (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. User:Doug Coldwell has been the main one working on these articles. I primarily just did some cleanup work and added stuff like the navboxes. Anyhow, Doug seems to be doing a lot of work on the articles. I'd give him more time to continue fleshing out the information. The pages have only existed for about a week at this point. Brian Powell (talk) 07:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He was told a week ago that these pages needed a lot more work and this is what he has produced so far. There is incredibly little on the importance of these law firms because they did nothing except be in the location of the signing. See here for more discussion on the matter and an analysis of what Doug was saying. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As I mentioned in my original comment, it's only been about a week. Some people have lives outside of Wikipedia edits. Brian Powell (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They were both created on January 21. That is getting on for 2 weeks ago. -- One pound (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For one thing, both of these are extensive enough that I don't think it would be wise to merge them into the main article about the park; it would create an article that's bottom-heavy and far too long to navigate well, in my opinion. For another thing...let's consider them as individual properties on the National Register. We allow articles for other NR properties, so long as sufficient information can be found on them; notability is not an issue for them. The only difference between them, to me, is that these NRHP listings are part of a larger property that happens to also be notable.
  • [edit] From the article on the Jones Law Office: "It also preserves the distinctive characteristics as embodying the period and method of construction typical in Piedmont Virginia in the mid-nineteenth century." - that seems like more than enough to establish notability, given that it's sufficient to establish historical validity for the US government. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 20:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is essentially a quote from here: "Significant under Criteria C embodying the characteristics of construction typical in Piedmont Virginia in the mid-19thC." (short version) or "Significant under Criteria C by embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, and method of construction. The buildings and resources at APCO constitute a holistic landscape typical of both a county government seat in Piedmont Virginia in the mid-19thC and of a farming community in the state." (long version) - that is, the whole landscape is significant, not the parts. To put it another way, this is a minor character in an episode, not a main cast member. -- One pound (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to note that the government only has them as notable because they are part of the park and all structures under the park must be registered under the National Register. They are not independently notable buildings and hence lack "landmark" status, which is the independent notability standard under the national park service. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sets a pretty low bar. Are we to expect separate articles on the McLean Well House, McLean Ice House, McLean Outside Kitchen, McLean Slave Quarters, McLean Privy, McLean Fence to go with the McLean House? It looks to me like virtually any historic man-made structure within the park is listed. -- One pound (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there much more that could realistically be said about any of those? We at least have a few paragraphs of information on each of the law offices. Zagalejo^^^ 01:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zagalejo - read the articles and you will see that most of the information is the same in each article. The only difference is the "description" of the buildings. This description can be made of the kitchen, slave quarters, outside kitchen, privy, fence, etc. Thus, you can have all 77 exactly the same. There is possibly 5 lines of unique text on those two law office pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure that's totally fair. The history sections are also different. But like I said, I'm fine with a merge, if it can be done well. Zagalejo^^^ 03:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How are the history sections different? The "historical significance" section, which is the only source of notability, is 100% the same. Then there are potential copyright issues by copy and pasting the whole section on the building. You cannot do that. Fair use limits it to 300 words or less, and that less is considered as proportion to the whole section on it. There are a lot of problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doing some research, I found this. Not only is the page numbering wrong (the first quote off Woodson's firm is really from 38-39, not 39), it deals with buying soap and not about why the building is important. This is definitely not a reliable source of information, at least for notability sake. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "History" sections above "Historical significance" are different, and have been different since the articles were first brought here. (Unless I'm going crazy...)
That said, I don't condone the massive copy/paste jobs. Those long block quotes seem to have been added to the articles recently. There was only one block quote between them when I first commented, and that one was only about 50 words long. Zagalejo^^^ 04:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the confusion of "history" and "historical significance" was sloppiness on my part - I didn't copy and paste the title when commenting. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the main page was long I might agree, but there's plenty of space there. I don't see a reason for a breakout. JJL (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not that strongly opposed to a merge, but a merge would have to be done properly. Article length isn't the only thing we have to worry about. We also want to avoid long, awkward digressions. Zagalejo^^^ 01:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I notice (from today's DYK) that many of the buildings are broken-out; merging some of the smaller ones into one page is also an option. JJL (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, per Ottava. -Oreo Priest talk 00:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - Notability is not established. I don't see a problem with merging these articles to the park's main article, as not all of the information is necessary (the description is unnecessarily long, and the historical significance would be unnecessary in the merged article). GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as each article appears to cross the notability and verifiability thresholds plus, just as importantly, each is a legitimate fork off of the parent Appomattox Park article. If all of these buildings were merged into one over-long super-article the immediate and proper call would be to split it back up for length and readability... and we'll be right here again, only we'll have wasted an enormous amount of time and energy. - Dravecky (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The unique sections of each page amount to less than 5k worth of information, including formatting. Since at at least half of them probably wont be listed for deletion, that gives around 8 articles total to list. That is an addition of 40k worth of information. Seeing as how WP:SIZE would allow for 10,000 words and doesn't recommend a definite split until 60k, your concern does not seem likely. By the way, how do they cross the notability? They are not mentioned except as being part of the areas, they are listed along side 77 other buildings (some fences, some outhouses, etc) and not even marked as independently notable (land mark status) by the national park services, and only contain original information on the size and shape of the house. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not taking any position on the question of the individual notability of the articles, as I haven't looked at it closely enough, but I think Dravecky has made an important point. I don't see that the content of the articles should be excluded from Wikipedia, so even if I wanted to support the AfD I should be saying "merge". But this isn't an encyclopedia which copes well with long pages, and our WP:N policy doesn't seem to address the common need to have more pages than there are individual subjects of notability. If we haven't got it already, we need a better concept of what could be called marsupial notability, connected to the multi-page structure which the nature of Wikipedia often calls for. But, not having looked at the particular question in enough detail, I don't say these articles could only rely on that. Xn4 (talk) 13:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was invited by Doug Caldwell to comment here, presumably related to the fact that i work mostly on NRHP articles and participate actively at wt:NRHP. Here goes:
  1. In the past, many wp:NRHP participants including myself have defended NRHP articles at AfD in a kind of lockstep, automatic mode. It is a privilege to be able to write articles about historic sites, worth defending. But the question of whether a contributing structure is worthy of a separate article is different than whether it can be covered at all. There may in fact be a new trend in wp:NRHP practice, instead, towards creating combination articles that cover the main points about related NRHP sites, even for sites separately listed on the NRHP but covered in one Multiple Property Submission. Here all are part of just one listing, I believe.
  2. I note mention above that one (or both) of these is merely a contributing structure. That is at least better than being a noncontributing structure, which would almost always not be notable. There are a number of separate articles about contributing structures, and wp:NRHP provides an NRHP infobox with fields appropriate for contributing structures, not present here.
  3. I'm somewhat aware of recent debates about multiple part DYKs involving NRHPs. I am suspicious of them, because it would appear that DYK medal-hunting is a large part of the purpose for the creation of the articles, and readability is perhaps secondary. I wonder, if the multiple NRHPs are related closely enough to be covered in one DYK, are they not closely enough related to be covered in one article, and would that not serve the reader better?
  4. I highly appreciate that Doug has taken and uploaded at least 4 pics to illustrate the Jones article. I tend to support whatever someone wants to do, if the person has actually gone and visited a site, and provides original research about it via our allowed exemption for photographs.
  5. The Jones description section is a restatement of details in its source, an apparently required bureaucratic inventory. I think that detail is excessive and not interesting for this structure, which is not important for its architecture. In my view, an encyclopedia article should be a summary, should be shorter than the primary and secondary sources that it draws upon. The description puts into sentences what is in somewhat more cryptic form at the source, but cannot add value otherwise. It may in fact be larger than the source passage. I'd prefer one or two sentences with the source being given as it is, leaving some details for the very interested reader to find in the source, rather than their finding nothing further there.
  6. I note that the Jones article's lead is insufficient to meet wikipedia notability guidelines used in some wikipedia areas, like for musicians, in that it does not assert notability. The entire lead is: "The Jones Law Office is part of the Appomattox Court House National Historical Park, which is identified as structure number 17." Besides not being grammatical, that does not assert importance of this house. It's hard for me to evaluate the merit of the AfD without importance being asserted in the article.

Hope these comments are useful. doncram (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is helpful. I wonder if a subsidiary "List of buildings at..." (i.e., "List of minor characters of Scrubs" style, as suggested above by One pound) might simultaneously address concerns about breaking out of the main article for stylistic reasons and not having lots of articles with either no content or just re-worked versions of their primary source web pages. JJL (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure - it seems one pound left for retirement after non-deletion related stress. Ottava Rima (talk)
Addendum: For perspective about which contributing structures are relatively more important, and why, the main NRHP document on the entire district, which was somehow not yet included in the Appomattox Court House National Historical Park article, should be consulted. There's language in its section 8 page 4 which might be used in describing the contribution of individual parts to a whole, as well as additional info on each of the contributing structures individually. It's not entirely new: some sources already used are probably derivatives from this more primary source. Unfortunately the on-line version of the document omits the author and date of preparation, which would appear in missing section 11, though there's a 1989 datestamp on the front. Copy of the full original may be obtained for free by request to nr_reference (at) nps.gov. Here's the reference to the online version.[1]
  1. ^ Author not noted (n.d.), National Register of Historic Places Registration: Appomattox Court House / Appomattox Court House National Historical Park (32 KB), National Park Service {{citation}}: |author= has generic name (help); External link in |title= (help) and Accompanying 12 photos, undated (32 KB) (Incomplete copy, lacking author and date)

I observed Woodson structure mentioned several places, didn't happen to spot Jones within the long document skimmed quickly. doncram (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Jones law office is also known as the Lorenzo D. Kelly house - which is in the document with a full description. Thanks for locating the PDF document. I now have an additional reference to work from for all the articles as it looks like they all have descriptive information here.--Doug Coldwell talk 00:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the Jones and Woodson articles still further. They are double what they were from the start. Besides the National Park Service and National Register of Historic Places information another secondary source historian I am using is William Marvel, a well known Civil War historian. He is the one that realized that the National Park Service misidentified the Jones Law office as the Lorenzo D. Kelly house, which Kelly occupied after Jones. The Bocock-Isbell House is also identified as the Kelly house in the National Register of Historic Places application PDF document. The secondary source reference A Place Called Appomattox by William Marvel has a book review here. The History section of the articles are the major part of each, with the Description of the structures as the second largest.
I have been in constant contact with the key Park historian in writing the Jones and Woodson articles. He gave me certain corrections and additional information. His last remarks on the last e-mail from him were:
Douglas,
That looks good. You certainly have been busy and we appreciate your efforts to enlighten others about Appomattox.
I'll peruse through the rest of your entries when I get a chance.
Patrick A. Schroeder, Historian
Appomattox Court House National Historical Park
P. O. Box 218
Appomattox, VA 24522
phone + FAX + email adddress --Doug Coldwell talk 14:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I think it would be helpful to close this and let those working on these articles take these comments with them and try to re-work the structure of the articles associated with this NRHP site. It sounds like a lot of good effort is going into adding useful info. and it can always be copied-and-pasted into a different format at a later date if desired. JJL (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. These two articles provide more detail and more historical background than is appropriate within Appomattox Court House National Historical Park. As far as national parks, or National Historical Parks, are concerned, I don't think we need to have an article about every single contributing structure within them, such as the ice house. But there's more historical data about the law offices and their occupants than there is about the ice house or the McLean Privy. It's a good thing to have detail within an article or broken out into separate articles. (It beats the article about Fort Snelling, which doesn't even mention the colonel's house, the historical barracks on either side of the parade ground, or the batteries that held the cannons for defense.) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 23:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. In my mind, although the magnitude may be different, why not keep all these subarticles? There is precedence, although the magnitude is different, by having so many subsegments of the Battle of Gettysburg and the Gettysburg Battlefield articles. More information and more communications are to be commended, not taken away. 8th Ohio Volunteer Infantry (talk) 02:41, 5 February 2009 (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/Woodson_Law_Office_and_Jones_Law_Office&oldid=1138718361"