Talk:Cox–Craddock House

Query about notability

No evidence of notability. Reference doesn't support any claim of notability as it says more than "one million properties on the National Register" (Msrasnw (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC))

It's fairly standard for us that items on the National Register of Historic places are considered to be notable, as they are subject to an independent review process by federal authorities which have rather precise criteria. To quote,

To meet the "Event" category, criterion A, the property must make a contribution to the broad patterns of American history. Criterion B, "Person," is associated with significant people in the American past. The third criterion, C, "Design/Construction," concerns the distinctive characteristics of the building through its construction and architecture, including having high artistic value or being the work of a master. The final criterion, D, "Information potential," is satisfied if the property has yielded or may be likely to yield information important to prehistory or history.[19] The criteria are applied differently for different types of properties; for instance, maritime properties have different application guidelines than buildings.[21]

. This more than passes our notability threshold. If you disagree, feel free to take to AFD as a test case, but in the meantime I'm removing the tag. Best, Ray^Talk 02:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is this article just refers to another wikipedia page on National Register of Historic places. That then has a link to various places. We have the reference number and date of adding: Added to NRHP: May 30, 2001 NRHP Reference#:0 1000612in. - I think we need a reference to infomration indicating that this property is on the register. Is there a link we could put on this page to indicate this?

On our page National Register of Historic Places it states that there are "more than one million properties on the National Register"

"Each year approximately 30,000 properties are added". I doubt that it is standard for all to pass notability? We should have some idea and indication as to why it is notable.

My understanding is that only one of the four criteria, not all four, need to be met. Indicating clearly which has been used for this house might then be used to establish notability.

1. the property must make a contribution to the broad patterns of American history. (I AM DOUBTFUL)
2. "Person," is associated with significant people in the American past. (I AM DOUBTFUL)
3. "Design/Construction," concerns the distinctive characteristics of the building through its construction and architecture, including having high artistic value or being the work of a master. (COULD BE - WILL LOOK INTO ARCHITECT)
4. "Information potential," is satisfied if the property has yielded or may be likely to yield information important to prehistory or history.(I AM DOUBTFUL)

Our entry also notes that "while National Register listings are mostly symbolic, they do provide some financial incentive to owners of listed properties. No protection of the property is guaranteed. During the nomination process, the property is evaluated in terms of the four criteria for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. The application of those criteria has been the subject of criticism by academics in the fields of history and preservation, as well as the public, and politicians."

I think notability is therefore open to question and we should at make some indication of the source of notability and also the article needs proper citations - the only reference being to another wikipedia page. I think it would seem premature to go to article for deletion as the article could be useful if notabilty can be indicated and verified and proper citations produced.

I have raised the issue at Talk:National Register of Historic Places#Sufficient for Notability to try to get help with references and proof and whether being on the list is generally - and in particular sufficient. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 09:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC))

These documents may help if you wish to have a source - but I am not sure whether this would be sufficient for notability. http://www.cityofaustin.org/edims/document.cfm?id=96047 and http://www.cityofaustin.org/edims/document.cfm?id=95892. This last has a biography of the architect - and that might be the best way to justfiy the notability of the house - but he seems to have done many such houses. I could not find anything much on the residents - the economics professors. Restored the notability tag and added one for sources to try to get help to improve the article to meet our requirements (Msrasnw (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC))

Done a little page on the architect but I think more might be needed. (Msrasnw (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC))

Msrasnw: I agree, it would be useful to get the community's sense on the matter, either on a talk page or at AFD (where there is a wider crowd). My feeling is that the information in the register listing is probably all you're going to get on it, and that it's notable, as a federal authority has examined, and chosen to publish, detailed information about the site (i.e. significant coverage in a creditable source independent of the subject). As for why there is no link, the reason is that the federal database does not allow for permalinks. I checked the listing; it's there (you're welcome to do so yourself). The listing is properly cited and referenced; there's no requirement that we provide a link to the specific listing (which is not possible in this case). Ray^Talk 21:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear RayAYang - Hi - which website does one find the listing on to find the entry? It might be better to list that on the article's page (not a link to another wikipedia page) as the page itself as things stand has no proper source. Also it just doesn't seem right to say it is notable because it is on national list (which has a range of criteria) rather than which criteria it meets and why it is notable itself. I couldn't find the entry via searching on several of the links on the other page so I couldn't find any details as to why it is one their list. The refs above seem like they might be useful if we can't find anything really substantial. Is the list itself OK or do people apply to get properties on it for tax purposes or to boost value as has been implied. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC))

[1] is the link to the database, you can search on Cox-Craddock House. Other than to confirm it exists, the online database is not really satisfactory (they haven't scanned in the official listing) yet. It's one of those sources that exists only on paper, and by reference in various places like the City of Austin link that you found. Best, Ray^Talk 22:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Still notability

It is claimed that "NRHP listing is sufficiently notable: there are multiple reliable sources available for all Register-listed properties" but we do not have multiple reliable sources here. So I think we have not yet established reliable sources to indicate that this property is notable. We have one source which is an application form filled in by the owners to make the claim that it meets the NRHP criteria - which is useful to the owner for Tax purpsoes (possible conflict of interest). It is on the register but so too are many tens of thousands of other proprties. It is not clear whether Wikipedias policy is to simply accept the register - given its faults as sufficient for notability or whether this should be established on a case by case basis. This has been raised here: Talk:National Register of Historic Places#Sufficient for Notability but as yet to no avail. I think it might be best to leave the notability tag in place until we have clearly established it as notable. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC))

The key is that there are print sources available. The nomination form (which is generally put together by a third party) is reviewed by both state and national offices and published by the National Register. Moreover, there are plenty of other documents (which aren't generally available) that must be submitted with the nomination form to prove that the statements on the form are reliable, and all nomination forms are required to include a "Major Bibliographic Sources" section with additional references. The nomination form is clearly a reliable source, and without significant coverage from other multiple reliable sources, there's no way that the state historic preservation office will consider suggesting that the property be listed on the Register. Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

For your information, according to the Register's freely-downloadable database, the property is listed under Criterion B: it is a property that is associated with the life of a person significant in our past. Nyttend (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

And also: people don't try to get properties on the Register primarily for tax purposes. Yes, you get benefits for it, but the amount of time it takes to document one of these properties is significant enough that you'd make lots of money if you were working for wages while putting together the nomination documents. As I said already, the state historic preservation office reviews all nominations; if they found that a property was suggested for nomination by someone for financial reasons, they'd reject it. Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not think we have any evidence that "this is a property that is associated with the life of a person significant in our past." There is no evidence of this on any of the sources inidicated or any independent sources. Who do you think it is?

I think, rather, the claim is it is the architecture or architect that is notable - but this dosen't seem so to me. But the entry in the ref. states that is one "one of a line of imposing houses, including Kuehne's own". Kuehne and his company and others built loads of houses like this. I put in the quote about it being an excellent example of a Colonial Revival residence. It is built of brick and has a "symmetrical composition, 12:12 windows framed by a stone keystone and flat brick arch above and a stone sill. Three pedimented dormers with round-arched Gothic-mullioned windows pierce the front of the sidegabled roof. A pedimented portico forms the prominent central entry; the door is framed with sidelights and a transom." But this doesn't seem much to me. What do you think? And I wrote the entry on the Kuehne (the architect) who seemed worthy of a little article. But this house just looks like tens of thousands of others. Does it really look notable to you or do you have any other evidence of it being notable and a statement of why it is notable? Is our position all the properties on the Register are deemed notable and we don't need to say why in our article? (In our article on the register it says there are more than one million properties on the National Register and 30,000 are added each year! ) - The client gets around $2000/year knocked off their tax bill but there are also benefits to the state authorities (despite the tax loss) in adding properties to the list as it improves the status of their area - so I think there are clear conflicts of interest here. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

Dear Nyttend, you claim that "there are multiple reliable print sources, even though they're not online yet". and that therefor the notability tag should be removed. I think it should not be removed until such multiple reliable print sources establishing notability of the Cox-Craddock House are referenced and we are told what is in them. Why do they say the house is notable? I think wikipedia would like reputable sources (NOT that they are online)and that they should be included when issues of notability such as here are raised. Msrasnw (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

Why not just obtain the free NRHP application document? Send an email request to "nr_reference (at) nps.gov" and you will receive it by postal mail in a few days (or right away by email if there happens to be a scanned electronic version of the document). This would immediately clear up all your questions about why this particular house is notable. doncram (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed notability tag as User:Doncram argues Talk:National Register of Historic Places#Sufficient for Notability that NRHP listing is sufficient for notability despite my reservations about conflicts of interest. The notability here is I think based on it being "C - "Design/Construction," concerns the distinctive characteristics of the building through its construction and architecture, including having high artistic value or being the work of a master." Perhaps I should add this to the article. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

Having read the NRHP nom form (which is actually part of the package linked in the article), I concluded that this house is listed on the National Register because it is an excellent well-preserved example of the work of locally prominent architect Hugo Kuehne. Since the house itself does not appear to be noteworthy except in connection with Mr. Kuehne, I propose merging this article into Hugo Kuehne. --Orlady (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware that the City of Austin package included any part of the NRHP nomination document. But, actually, the package linked in the article includes only a partial copy of the NRHP nom form. Unfortunately the part missing is the entire "Narrative Statement of Significance" of the property! In particular, the included package omits Section 8 "continuation pages" 22-24, whose existence mentioned on page 16 of the 35 page City of Austin package. So what you have is the dry description section only, and not any part of the nominator's explicit argument for why the place is notable. It is very reasonable that anyone not familiar with NRHP documents would not recogize that omission. I happen to know to expect that the document should include a cogent statement, in text, of the importance of the place. Anyhow, arguments about merging away this article are premature; no one has adequate perspective to judge that the place should be covered only in an article about the architect; the full NRHP document certainly should be obtained. doncram (talk) 06:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of sourced information that indicates the significance of the specific subject, the normal procedure would be to merge to a broader article, with the idea that the topic can be split out as a separate article later if additional information is obtained that warrants such a split.

Although the "Narrative Statement of Significance" may be lacking, the available portion of the nom form does identify the basis for listing. It says: "The Cox-Craddock House deserves recognition and preservation and is an excellent example of Colonial Revival style by a noted Texas architect; it is therefore being nominated under Criterion C." On that basis, I continue to think it would be most appropriate to cover this house in the article about the architect.

If Doncram or anyone else is sufficiently interested in this house to go to the trouble of conducting additional research on it, and finds information that indicates that this specific house is more individually noteworthy than the current article and the available portion of the nom form suggest, they could easily split it out a separate article later. --Orlady (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that there's already enough here to make it awkward to merge into the article on Hugo Kuehne. I'll go try to get ahold of the nomination documents, and we'll see what happens. Ray^Talk 19:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I dunno. I just merged most of the content of this article into Hugo Kuehne. I omitted some details of the lives of the owners of the house, since I have seen no evidence that those details are worth including in the encyclopedia. I don't think the merger was at all awkward. --Orlady (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Excellent work - I withdraw my objection. I do have a request pending with the NPS for the nomination documents, since it seems we've all put in enough lifespan into this little project to make it worthwhile, but as you said, restoring the article if there's more to write would not be difficult. Ray^Talk 20:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

development of article

Has anyone received the full NRHP document? I'd be interested/willing to help develop this article if that could be shared to me. I have email enabled.

I notice the current assertion of significance of the house is currently a good guess, not a clear statement. It would not usually be enough for NRHP listing that a place is a good example of a given architectural style. I expect the NRHP document's section on the significance will present a more specific argument.

By the way, it does seem there is detail already included in this article which is not suited for an article about the architect. For example, "The design by Hugo Kuehne included a porte cochere which was not built.[4]", which i had added, seems appropriate here, but it seems out of place to mention that at the architect article (Hugo Kuehne).

Anyhow I'd like to help develop this to be a better article, and then to edit down the material that was merged to the Hugo Kuehne article. doncram (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I sent a request via their website, which I guess has, in the finest traditions of the civil service during the holiday season, disappeared into the wastebin. I may try again, real life permitting. Ray^Talk 04:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)