Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pullman Flatiron Building

Add links
From 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 03:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pullman Flatiron Building[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Pullman Flatiron Building (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notablity requirements, is simply a building in Pullman Washington. Searched for nonlocal news or articles on the building and could not find any. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator - @Doncram has made significant improvements (despite their enthusiasm for the building needing to be reigned in now and again) and general consensus seems to support keeping the article. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This one in particular seems historic, seems to be covered adequately in local sources and to have attracted the attention of a local history society so documentation is available. It is also significant as a good example of work by architect William Swain, an accomplished architect and also mayor of Pullman. I don't see why the building has not yet been nominated and listed on the National Register of Historic Places as a locally significant site. Sometimes obviously meritorious buildings are not listed because the owner fears building/zoning restrictions. Many are listed when a building needs renovation that would be subsidized by Federal, state, local tax incentives if listed; the one in photo appears to be in good condition though so maybe there has not been financial incentive for listing. The architect appears to be individually notable; the article currently is a combo which could perhaps better be split into two articles, one on the architect (which can and should include a list of their works) and one on the building. There is no way the entire thing should be deleted. At worst, it could be revised into an explicit article about the architect, with a section on this building. That kind of reworking is not to be dictated at AFD but rather should be left to editors at the article(s).
Without looking into edit history at all yet, the article shows signs of embattlement of a good newbie/amateur editor (conscientious-seeming writing; a tag expressing suspicion of self-dealing; duplicated references rather than repeated uses of named ones; the fact of this AFD). I would hope we would help develop this article perhaps, rather than come down on the editor unnecessarily harshly. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP though; a simple "Keep" would be best. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 17:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issues with the editor, from what I could gather based on the subjective language it was likely a class project or something of the sort. I also have no issues with this building, it is a cool little flatiron, however I don't believe the sources satisfy the general notability guidelines. Additionally, being on a Wikipedia list does not count as being notable. I could add myself or my house to a list of categories that my house belongs to, it would not then be appropriate to reference that as source that shows notability. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This Pullman Walking Tour brochure, produced in 2014 as a class project, and including this building, could be related. Perhaps the article was started by Gruen or other professor or by one of the students. I wonder if other articles were started at the same time and perhaps have been deleted since then, but could/should be restored? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 18:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If they were deleted and of the quality of this article they at least went through the AfD process. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD subject article was created by User:Akdunn on 13 March 2012.‎ The Dumas Seed Company warehouse is apparently another one, created by User:Dvaux on 14 March 2012‎. I am glad it has survived. I seem unable to find others easily, am afraid a number have been lost, because surely a class would have more than 2 articles created. Phil Gruen, professor mentioned in walking tour brochure, is featured in this Washington State University magazine "for his work with Washington’s Classic Buildings for the Society of Architectural Historians Archipedia Project. Along with Tri-Cities faculty member Robert Franklin, Phil has produced and continues to supplement this significant archival and encyclopedic service to the State and University. They focus on both canonical Washington buildings (contemporary and historical) and vernacular landscapes and infrastructure." I might try to get in touch with Gruen. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 08:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I am a tad irked by the deletion nomination, which comes across to me as false and then also perhaps malicious. It is harsh or malicious or something like that to call this "simply a building in Pullman Washington". It is obviously not. And the tagging and this AFD add to my perception of this. No offense to the deletion nominator and/or the negative tagger intended, but motive in tagging and in AFD nomination, and willingness to cast aspersions, or appearance thereof, sort of seems to matter. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 17:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does just seem like a building - I will say that the architect might be notable, but this is a page about one of his works, and not every building designed by a notable architect is itself notable. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'd also lean towards Keep. It looks like a good, well-preserved, local, example of an recognised architectural type. Sure, the article needs work, and the prose can veer towards the unencyclopedic; "came barreling down the road" can definitely go. But the new author made good-faith attempts to properly cite the article to a range of RS, and I think they should be encouraged. I think the nominator's comment on the Talkpage is overly harsh. Though the article was written in 2012, so the newbie may not be around to be offended. When I started in 2007, my first efforts to spruce up a page on an obscure architect were very poorly written and with no understanding at all of sourcing and formatting. But some years on, he ended up TFA! And I've gone on to cover every one of his buildings. We all have to start somewhere. KJP1 (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are plenty of sources cited. The nominator is going to have to explain why these do not count toward WP:GNG. Garuda3 (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll conduct a source assessment on the articles talk page over the next couple of hours LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


P.P.S. I see that in fact it was given a COI tag in July 2022 by a different editor. The deletion nominator arrived apparently when the article was already tag-bombed with:
  • "This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. (October 2015)
  • "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (October 2015)"
  • "This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. (October 2015)"
  • "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (July 2022)"
I see that the deletion nominator, before nominating, removed a large swath of text, which, offhand, I think was not necessary and was not helpful. As a general rule in AFDs, I think it is a mistake and/or unhelpful to reduce an article just before nominating; it is better to keep it whole and present criticism allowing others to make their judgments. The deletion nominator and perhaps others appear uncomfortable with primary sourcing that remains and that was included in previous versions. Some specific comments:
  • The statement "It was designed by William Swain, a popular Pullman architect at the time." (Edwin Garretson. “Re: History of the Pullman Flatiron Building.” Message to Allison Dunn. Whitman County Historical Society. 29 Feb. 2012. Email.) was changed by the deletion nominator to drop "popular" and put in "local" instead. I rather think the source is legitimate and reliable (I expect that it could be obtained and reviewed at the Whitman County Historical Society), and I rather think it states the person was "popular". Editing from afar diminishes the article in this case, decreasing its statement of importance.
  • "At that time, Swain was a well-known individual and natives of the area today have likely heard his name." is another statement that was deleted, but I rather think that is probably a true statement. Its reference was a 1901 source which could hardly have spoken to what natives of this area "today" think, but I expect the point could be supported by other means, e.g. pointing to numerous places named "Swain" perhaps or to numerous references in local media.
  • "The two-story flatiron was built as an office building in a triangular shape, to conform with the plot of land it occupied. Multiple businesses have occupied the building over its lifetime, including banks, insurance companies, and a dentist."(Esther Pond Smith, Whitman County Historical Society archives. Notations. 8 Mar. 2012) This passage with primary source, as edited, was left in. I think the primary source is fine. Notations recorded and verifiable in archives are fine. We are allowed to use, with care (like to avoid introducing inaccuracies), primary sources.
  • "By the time the Flatiron was built, downtown Pullman was already thriving. The Corner Drug Store, the Artesian Hotel, the Pullman Herald building, and multiple theaters were important locations within the downtown core, and all within a block of the Flatiron Building. Before the construction of the Flatiron, the lot it now occupies was used as a hitching place for farmers riding in on horses or with wagons.(Esther Pond Smith, Whitman County Historical Society archives. Notations. 8 Mar. 2012) After its construction, it became an icon for the corner between Main Street and Grand Avenue. A heavy flood on March 1, 1910 caused serious damage to many downtown buildings. The flood came up to the front door of the Flatiron Building, but the building as a whole was not drastically affected.(c1910. Photographs. Pullman Library: Palouse Heritage Collection. 28 Feb 2012.) Other floods occurred in downtown Pullman in 1948, 1972, and 1979, none being as damaging as the 1910 flood and none causing significant damage to the Flatiron Building.(Robert Luedeking. Pullman, Washington. Charleston: Arcadia Publishing. 2010.) Many of the flood photos from over the years show the Flatiron in the midst of the mess. Though some of the buildings in the downtown are gone or have changed, the Flatiron is still recognizable." This passage seems entirely fine to me, but was entirely deleted. Arcadia Publishing is known to be sort-of-like a vanity publisher for competent-but-local history buffs, but photos don't lie.
I'll stop here. I think that the local-esque creation and editing of this article, with use of locally verifiable sources, is different and can rub some Wikipedia editors the wrong way, but this article is in fact fine to keep as is or with polishing. And without the tagbombing. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 18:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment conducted. Fine if it stays, but re: "Swain was a well-known individual and natives of the area today have likely heard his name" is not very encyclopedic, and probably true does not equal true. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For general reference:
LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets the GNG. To address the Nom a bit, reliable third party sourcing does not require (anywhere that I've seen) that they be non-local sources. Crazynas t 22:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    True, however the coverage of the location all relates to an incident where a frontloader crashed into the building and the subsequent repairs. I guess I don't view that alone as "significant in-depth coverage" per WP:NBUILDING. But this is where editors can disagree! LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : Visited even deleted text questioned above. If users who developed article Pullman, Washington are active can be pinged for further discussion; But as uninvolved user my assessment is ' Merge / Transfer → Delete remaining content after discussion @ Talk:Pullman, Washington in due course.
Detail assessment : ReferWP:NLAND#No inherited notability ".. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events. .."; Refer WP:NBUILDING ".. Where their notability is unclear, they generally redirect to more general articles .." So first merging in Pullman, Washington is recommended. Second as per WP:NOT WP is not Travel guide or detail history of 'not so significant' places so some information seems okay for transferring to sister project www.wikivoyage.org. Some information might be kept or deleted that call can be taken @ Talk:Pullman, Washington in due course.
The present article can fulfill Objective of encyclopedic curiosity just for too local township–level audience hence it is good for local guide or city level or regional encyclopedia at the most; Article's Objective of fulfillment of encyclopedic curiosity of international audience seems too marginal. WP:GNG says ".. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, .."
Bookku (talk) 08:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2010 photo
  • Keep Sourcing looks good enough. And, even though this is only an unofficial criteria, the topic is very encyclopedic. North8000 (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am happy that User:LegalSmeagolian has been helping with URLs and otherwise in refining the article. But now I am irked at the dang reconstructor people after the 1994 damage, who were ignorant or cheap or both about the high quality building materials used in 1905. As can be seen clearly in the 2010 photo, the flat-toned brick in the front 1/4 of the building does not match the rest of the building with its original tapestry brick (currently a redlink; there is Draft:Tapestry brick however). And while I am at it i may give a piece of my mind to the School of Design and Construction professor(s) who seem not to have noticed it -- at least the student-written article didn't reflect this basic observation to be made, and instead blithely stated "Swindal chose to restore the façade as accurately as possible, to maintain the original historic look the building, including including using intact bricks salvaged from the rubble" which is crapola.
And, User:Crazynas and anyone else, it is not "original research" to report straightforwardly what is visible in a photo. You have to know that tapestry brick looks different than flat boring brick, but this is not rocket science (wp:NOR does not apply, we are _allowed_ to introduce new info by going to a place, taking photos, using and interpreting them straight-forwardly in an article). --Doncram (talk,contribs) 20:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate your enthusiasm about the brickwork and agree it looks worse, your phrasing was not a neutral point of view LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram I see you again have called out the people who did the reconstruction work. While I think the difference in brickwork is notable, doing so in such a way is not NPOV LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, i got irked again, and said as much in my edit summaries that rewording would be needed. Please do rewrite. However the factual observation that the reconstruction did not use tapestry brick which would have matched needs to stay in IMHO; if there's disagreement about that let's cover it at article's talk page. I brought this situation up here in the AFD to highlight that primary-type materials are useable in the article, and to avoid seeming to hide another instance of such from those who might not be happy about them for purposes of evaluating the article at AFD level. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 21:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: I don't know why this is on the AfD and not the article talk page, but just to be To be clear this edit which you reverted back in is a borderline violation of WP:BLP. I would not have removed it if you if you had simply said the bricks didn't match it: was calling the the reconstructors ignorant or cheap which is negative and not supported that I objected to. I see that LegalSmeagolian has already fixed it but this is inappropriate tone for an encyclopedia and a pretty textbook drawing of conclusions (about the builders) not supported in the sources, not a 'straightforward interpretation' as you appear to double down on above. Crazynas t 05:01, 10 February 2023 (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/Pullman_Flatiron_Building&oldid=1138706050"