Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polite architecture

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 closing early as nominator seem to have accepted the keep argument and no-one else is making a delete case. Those contending for keep seem to know what they are talking about.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polite architecture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable subject that seems to mostly made up of unsourced
original research. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous publications which refer to polite architecture. The article is not largely constituted by unsourced material/ Pease see the Brunskill extract. If you give me more time I wil source statments to spport the paragraph whch details the historical developlment of polite architecture. --His1ojd (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by His1ojd (talk • contribs) 01:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion will last several days. And if you need more time than that you can always work on the article in your userspace. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Just what was the reasoning behind "non-notable"? Are you an admin, unable to stretch a hand and check the encyclopedia? No? Then pick it up, there's more here. Verdict: keep if someone competent in British architecture adopts and improves it; merge to vernacular architecture otherwise. NVO (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it too late to include British architecture in this nomination (are oxymorons allowed)? No, only kidding. Maybe I'm off on this one. It could turn out to be a very impolite AfD. Are gargoyles considered polite or impolite? What about a leaky roof? "Between the extremes of the wholly vernacular and the completely polite, examples occur which have some vernacular and some polite content" Completely polite? LMAO. Is this for real or are you guys spoofing me? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the answer to your pains: Klein, Lawrence (1994). "Politeness" as linguistic ideology in late seventeenth and eighteenth-century England. ISBN 311013697X, ISBN 9783110136975. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help); External link in |journal= (help) pp. 31-50 . It may be an overwhelmingly difficult reading; hey, language history was never easy. This article itself can be a base for rewriting of Politeness (if Truthiness is FA, why not?). Which, irony aside, is another merge option. NVO (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this gem: "Historically, the growth of polite architecture tends to coincide with growths in wealth, the movement of people, the profession of architecture, the invention and use of man-made building materials, and the availability of transport networks capable of delivering materials produced outside of a building's immediate locality." So before there were professional architects everything was impolite? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Vernacular' rather than 'impolite' is the term ordinarily used to define buildings which are created for functional purposes, based on local building practices and materials, and pay little to no regard to national or international architectural styles and fashions. However, as the polite architecture page stipulates the difference between the polite and vernacular is often a matter of degree, with many examples of building illustrating elements of both traits. Before the advent of the social and economic factors, which Childofmidnight highlights, buildings were likely to be vernacular (please refer to vernacular architecture page), because the necessary social and economic structures were not in place to enable the realisation of particular architectural styles. Hence there are relatively few buildings today which could be regarded as 'polite' in larges areas of rural sub-Saharan Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.171.15 (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason not to have a page on this subject - it exists. However, the page does need a lot of work to meet Wikipedia standards, and is a little confusing. Polite architecture is a mostly 19th century product. The buildings are unique in design, often public or municipal buildings. The reason they are unique is because their architectural concepts and traditions are national or global, but they are built of local stone and materials - an exagerated and fictitious example would be a church in the style of St Paul's Cathedral, with no resemblence to the local provincial architecture, built in Norwich from local flintstone rather than the more sophisticated pale dressed stone that one would expect. Giano (talk) 07:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The differences between vernacular architecture and polite architecture are important topics in the conservation of historic buildings, especially in the UK. See: [1] [2] [3] among others. This is a clearly important topic in architectural history. Merging the page to the style that was basically its opposite is a clearly nonsensical solution to any perceived problems with this article. It should be allowed time to grow and develop by itself. JulesH (talk) 08:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Emphatically a real subject: see Google Books, and as JulesH says, it's antithetical to vernacular, so the merge is definitely wrong. It just needs development: expansion using more than just the Brunskill source. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing does need some development, particularly with regards to the paragraph addressing polite architecture's historical development. Reference to the use of polite definitions of architecture for building conservation purposes would also be beneficial. If someone could help, it would be greatly appreciated. --His1ojd (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by His1ojd (talk • contribs) 10:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - His1ojd has added at least one good reference since the nomination. I agree the article needs a lot of work. Racepacket (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment For the record, I have looked at the google books sources. It's mostly trivial mentions in passing and often the authors had the good sense to put the term in quotes. This appears to be some sort of British contrivance, and as the article makes clear, it's an artifice of mostly imagined and thoroughly confused significance. But I suppose making up terms that signify little or nothing is what the British academics are best at. When we Yanks make a show about nothing at least we own up to it. High architecture I take it means the same thing, but is also a problematic term with little to no real utility. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Childofmidnight you clearly know little to nothing about architectural theory. Whilst polite architecture is a terms which began to be commonly used in the 19th century, it can encompass the high architecture but also examples of 'low' archiecture, provided it meets the characterisitc elements previously described. Your note that, 'Polite architecture describes a style of mostly 19th century Western European, especially British, buildings constructed for wealthy clients' is compltely unfounded and quite clearly contradicts the rest of the article and the quoted academic theory. If you're going to rely on a quick search of google books with no prior knowledge of the subject (which seems to still be the case)as your basis for drastically altering an article, you should not make the alterations - whatever the shortcomings of the original piece were. PLEASE NOTE, polite architecture does not refer to a particular architectural style, it is a term used to encompass all aesthetically led architectural styles and fashions. On this basis examples of high architecture, as diverse as Bleinheim Palace and the Eiffel Tower can be catergorised as polite, just as a humble new build residential property, which may make incorporate aesthetic design features into its exterior appearance, also contains elements of the polite. Rant over

"a term used to encompass all aesthetically led architectural styles and fashions" Yikes. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As something of an architectural dilettante, this article certainly has potential, and I've done some work on it to try to bring its style up to more encyclopedic standards. I think there is really some potential for a good article here. H₂O Shipper 17:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact you did an excellent job. I applaud your efforts. I'm ready to move the article to your user space so you can finish the job. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've seen sturdier articles, but I've encountered the term a few times when an author is getting ready to be condescending about a building whose pretentions are out of keeping with the local taste. Acroterion _(talk) 04:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I appreciate the good humor. Win some lose some. Polite architecture we'll have. I'd certainly hate for a brick or a cinderblock to fall on my head. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:26, 23 January 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.