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]
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]

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]
  • 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]
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]

**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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]


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]
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.
More