Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Meeting House Law Building & Gallery

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 delete. I'm discounting Orlady's opinion as withdrawn, Candleabracadabra's as that of a now-blocked sockpuppet, and the unreadable wall of text at the bottom of the discussion because it is unbelievably lengthy and utterly confused. What remains is one "keep" opinion that, unlike the several "delete" opinions, does not address the argument about the quality of the sources on which the argument for deletion hinges.  Sandstein  18:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
The Meeting House Law Building & Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable building. While old, and with some local interest as indicated by local coverage, the building does not seem architecturally or historically significant. The article appears to have been created as part of a larger PR campaign for the law firm that presently occupies the building. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The building appears to be historically significant as a building and a Mennonite church (not too many of those), and it is a guess but i suspect it would be eligible for listing on a local or national historic register. Many owners opt not to support listing, to avoid perceived disadvantages of potential restrictions being imposed. It apparently was renovated with attention to historic preservation. Also, there is assertion that it hosts a museum; a museum by definition should be open to the public on some terms. Isn't any museum Wikipedia-notable? I believe so. The article doesn't seem overly promotional about the law firm that resides there, to me; YMMV. --doncram 01:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some sources are low quality and there are a lot of article topics here unrelated to the building. The history section, for example, talks about the site's history. All content in the article which is not tied to a cited source ought to be deleted, then the next step would be to check the sources for reliability. Could someone who supports this article choose the two best sources from the references so that it would be easy to check if any source has directly provided journalistic coverage of this building? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another alternative might be to move this to Vincent Mennonite Church (currently a redirect to this article) and revise to could cover the church before and after this building. It is an active, ongoing church today, probably individually notable, in a new building. See this history page at the church webpage. A Mennonite History Center has historic records of the church, inventoried here. There is probably a lot more available, those are just two hits. There simply must be a lot of coverage of the church over more than 2 centuries, though much would not be online available. The historic building could be covered in a section there. There are many church articles where there are sections covering old buildings; there are also many pairs of article about modern church article + article about old history building. --doncram 19:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neither the congregation nor the building is notable, and there is nothing to show otherwise. The references ae either mere notices of the sort of local description that includes everything in the area. If an article could be written about the earliest church on the site, that would be notable. DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I think there may be a notable topic here, but I'm not sure what it is. The church congregation does not appear to be notable. This building is old and possibly was of historical interest before the lawyer modified it. The building apparently has been too severely altered to interest preservationists, but it might still be a local landmark. (Many National Register properties are less prominent than this building.) The article cites some sources (no longer available online, and ref details are incomplete) that suggest that there may have been substantial attention from reliable sources. The topic with the strongest claim to notability appears to be the lawyer, Hy Mayerson. His activities as an arts/entertainment patron/promoter/fan (as well as alterer of historic property) and his ambitious plans to make this building an "ImaginAIrium" may cross the notability threshold. See [1][2][3][4]. The combination of the church history, the building, and the lawyer may add up to one notable article topic. The content would, of course, need to be trimmed and repurposed to match whatever is identified as a notable topic. --Orlady (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There has already been an attempt to create an article about Mayerson Law which was deleted by AFD (here). The citations found by Orlady regarding Hy Mayerson amount to little more than mentions in passing. I don't know that the church history will prove to be that significant. (If it were, the locals probably wouldn't have allowed Mayerson to alter the structure.) While there's a little bit of a lot of stories here, I don't think any one of them merit inclusion, and I don't think the sum of the parts adds up to anything coherent enough to build an article on. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: re WikiDan61's "(here). I will restrict otherwise commenting on the inaccurate facts & opinions offered by WikiDan61 leading to the deletion of my 40+ year law practiceWIKI page. I do offer insight to WikiDan61's mis statements regarding the deletion Of The Mayerson Law Offices P.C. at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Redkruzer Hy aka Redkruzer Redkruzer (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)redkruzerRedkruzer (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough diat scussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week delete, userfy. Sources are very poor, and not a single one seems to concern the building, giving this a light of WP:OR. It's a shame Wikipedia:Notability (buildings, structures, and landmarks) didn't pass (perhaps it's time to try to make this one again?). In light of no specific guidelines, and this failing GNG, I am afraid delete is the only valid way. However, this is a nice article, and we could userfy it. It could also be merged into Spring City, Pennsylvania, itself a mess, it's history section seems to be a total OR, see inline comment visible in edit mode at the bottom of that section... If the people from "Spring-Ford Historical Society" or such could publish this on their website, if they have one, we could use it as a source. But it seems to me that some local history affectionados are trying to use Wikipedia as a web host :( Is there a local wikia it could be moved to? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - definitely not historic for this area, sources are not reliable, "museum" was intended to be opened, but no evidence that it did. Basically just a promotional piece for a local personal injury law firm, who only give the building about three words on their website.
Calling an 1889 building in Chester County "historic" is just laughable - there are 314 NRHP sites in ChesCo with perhaps a majority having been built before 1800. There are many non-NRHP sites that are historically notable, but there are perhaps 1,000 in ChesCo more notable than this. Just being a Mennonite church doesn't cut it - there are at least 100 in eastern Pennsylvania, as well as Moravian, Brethren and other German groups, many of which go back to the time of Wm. Penn (as congregations) with surviving buildings typically before 1820. Chester County actually predates Penn's arrival (1682) and was the heart of a rural Quaker boom that started in the 1680s and continued up to the Revolution. Each of the old townships (disregard the East/West splits) likely had a documented Quaker congregation active before the Revolution, whereas this congregation is documented back to only 1798.
But just delve into the sources - they all look made up. "Some of the first music videos" look like homemade Super 8's shot in a bar and reposted to Youtube. I'm very familiar with many sources for ChesCo history and the article does not use them. (I'll ping @Orlady: on this) Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given Smallbones' superior knowledge of Chester County, his strong support for deletion clearly trumps my weak support for keeping this. --Orlady (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The site's history seems to go back to 1750. Indeed there are MORE historic sites, but that does not negate the historical significance of this site. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

Hello, I am Hy Mayerson, Colleen & I have owned The Meeting House for some decades now. I wish to correct some inaccuracies infacts/opinions above stated. I will comment on only 1 now, but will have much more within a week: "..:But just delve into the sources - they all look made up. ..." Yes look at the first reference. It includes a nice photo of The Meeting House Law Offices & Gallery. Below that it states :

"Vincent Mennonite Cemetery, which was in earlier times known as Rhoad's Burying Ground, is certainly one of the oldest, if not the oldest, burying ground in the area of Chester County along the west side of the Schuylkill. John C. Wenger in his 1937 'History of the Mennonites of the Franconia Conference' states, "The present building has a stone in it with the date 1735 inscribed upon it. This has been regarded as the date of the founding of the congregation. It seems to be based on the date of an old grave marker." Some deny that a meeting house or congregation could have existed at that early date, however records show that Johannes Roth (Rhoads) settled on this land in 1719. He died in 1738, his first wife having predeceased him. It is reasonable to think they would have been buried at this burying ground on the land where they lived.

Frederick Sheeder, in his 1845 sketch of Vincent Township [PMHB, Vol. XXXIV (1910), January, April & July editions] said, "the meeting house that has allways whent by the name of Rohd's this meeting house was built 1750 the old Germans nearly all in the neighborhood church and meeting folks buried on this graveyard Adam Miller that died on John Shuler's place was buried here before the revolution Henry Heffilfinger, the father of Jacob, was buried here 1790 . . . and old John Wagner, Loranz Hippel in the year 1785 (sic), old John and Henry Rohds, Nicholas Miller and other old members rest here". To be continued. Thank you, Hy aka Redkruzer Redkruzer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redkruzer (talk • contribs) 18:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not sign above correctly. In recently returning to reference 2: Sketch of Vincent Township (PMHB, Vol. XXXIV (1910), January, April & July editions), Frederick Sheeder, 1845, It is clear from the notable source : The 1910 Pennsylvania Magazine Of History & Biography , Volume 34 aka Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, vol.34, issue 2, 1910 , http://journals.psu.edu/index.php/pmhb/article/view/26448/26205 at page 196 of this 1910 publication that it advises that The Meeting House was originally constructed in 1750. To be continued … Redkruzer (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Hy,aka RedkruzerRedkruzer (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Redkruzer (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Hy aka RedkruzerRedkruzer (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Thanks Redkruzer for commenting! To others, he may have been prompted to find his way here by my phoning and leaving a message at the law office. I did not invite anyone to come here and vote, although in my message i felt I had to refer to the Wikipedia article and the AFD to explain my call. I wanted to ask for a current status on the museum and gallery, as a matter of fact, to address assertion above that there is no evidence that the museum ever opened. See User talk:Redkruzer#Meeting House Law Building & Gallery.

Redkruzer, your providing documentation that the building was built in 1735 or 1750 helps! That seems to address some concerns here, and is useful info for this AFD and/or could be added to the article (though maybe adding here, until a decision is settled here, might be best). Sources can be used even if they are not available online. With Redkruzer's interest now, I am hopeful that more sources and content can be added to the article eventually. This AFD is about the notability of the topic, and the article can be improved later.

And, per several editors' comments above, there already seemed to be near-threshold notability in several ways. I notice this recent AFD on Frank A. DeMarco (an unrelated topic), where near-threshold notability in several ways was an issue and where some argued that sufficed, and the article was Kept. I think that is a good argument. --doncram 18:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Meeting House Law Building is and remains a museum. It is a museum of the imagination : The ImaginAIRium. : A museum is an institution that cares for (conserves) a collection of artifacts and other objects of scientific, artistic, cultural, or historical importance and makes them available for public viewing through exhibits that may be permanent or temporary.[1] … Museums have varying aims, ranging from serving researchers and specialists to serving the general public. The continuing acceleration in the digitization of information, combined with the increasing capacity of digital information storage, is causing the traditional model of museums (i.e. as static “collections of collections” of three-dimensional specimens and artifacts) to expand to include virtual exhibits and high-resolution images of their collections for perusal, study, and exploration from any place with Internet.[citation needed] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum It has been a live, actual & virtual museum of the arts. For the past three years it has been open to the public 9 to 5, 5 days a week to Dec 2013. It is now open physically by appointment and for special events.

It exists today,physically and virtually, in The Meeting House’s museum, The imaginAIRium in a world of resplendent color honoring & housing a lifetime of Melvin Goldfield’s Art. Mel Goldfield Installation For June 16,2013 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqVyN3eCN3E

Artist Goldfield’s scuptures, paintings,etchings, readings, silkscreens, woodcuts have been on perpetual public display. All of the art in the videos have been or remain on display. That is both physically & virtually: Melvin Goldfield's Illustrations for Louis Armstrong's It's A Wonderful World https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5XjHY3G-A0 Eva Cassidy - Chanteuse : Mel Goldfield - Oil Painting : "A Message To The Children" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lOpjuKVHm8 Illustrations on A Theme, Wild Thing: Sendak, Goldfield,Troggs -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcLLlb41Ea0

Physically:The Great Room of The Meeting House.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcLLlb41Ea0 a one of a kind hand crafted desk by one of Chester County's premier craftsmen, Jasper Brinton. See the first 3 images: http://www.jasperbrinton.com/desks.html On exhibit are Knoll Furniture from mid 20th century represented in MOMA. Visitors may sit in them and live with them.This table is for sit down at, talk, discuss, create...: Saarinen Dining Table - 78" Oval see http://www.knoll.com/product/saarinen-oval-dining-table-78 4 Platner Arm Chair (WARREN PLATNER 1966) to sit at this table, all as a unit dwarfed in The Great Room ... http://www.knoll.com/product/platner-arm-chair or Platner Easy Chair WARREN PLATNER 1966 see http://www.knoll.com/product/platner-easy-chair with the table & footstools displayed on the Knoll site ... A 1950 HI Fi console with world's of 1950 to 80 33 1/3 RPM records to hear analogue sound in the acoustic chamber that is The Great Room, a listening house (hear : http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dpopular&field-keywords=lazarus%2C+listening+house) ... imagine that ...

4 or 5 of the world class musicians that have performed live here: Arvel Bird - here is an excerpt : Lord Of The Strings-Arvel Bird: Aug 15, 2012 Live - At The i In The Meeting House 19421 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5mKYuIbqK0 Sean Tyrrell : Here is a film edited at The imaginAIRium from a Sean Tyrrell album : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6zA8d_jVjA, or 

from A an imaginAIRium produced performance in Spring City : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2MxPOhRx0I- Wild Mountain Thyme .

Sean did play at The imaginAIRium in late 2013, but we have not uploaded any of that yet.

MO - Steve Montague - “Alone Together” : “Great MH Performances: 1. Steve Montague Gibson Guitar” : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxyMtHHyuyg Steve Montague Tears Up Wes Montgomery's Tear It Down https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex2MxW_nnrc

Joseph Salviuolo - A rather complicated brilliant talent. Joe had the only double degree from the U. Of PA, in folklore & communications. Here Master Salviuolo is celebrated by another musician. http://www.jimcrocefans.com/groundless.htm

Here Joseph Salviuolo is saluted by the French youtube artist:Violetparme in her : Thursday. Alone in the crowd. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysha62K3w4Q . In this piece Artist Violetparme uses the soundtrack from Joe’s mid 1970s performance of his, perhaps, million seller :Thursday. The original video contained within WIKI’s The Meeting House, herein debated, was soundly ridiculed by a WIKI editor heckler.

And here is Joe’s final performance, captured by imaginAIRium Films : Google JOSEPH SALVIUOLO,MAC,AM aka SAL JOSEPH https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQoipy87Hok Joe’s Great performance at The Meeting House, late 1970,early 80ish, on 2 pianos, of his original song: 

At The ImaginAIRium: Perrier & Peaches, Jim Croce 's closest friend : Sal Joseph : piano & voice     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STlJiCKob2s

Poetry readings in The imaginAIRium: Here is one: Poets : Kathryn Keegan : At The i , in The Meeting House - Poets : Kathryn Keegan : At The i , in The Meeting House

We were open 9-5 and more, but now by appointment or special events ...

HyRedkruzer (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)RedkruzerRedkruzer (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC) edit of 2014May25 6:07 AM Hy aka Redkruzer (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)RedKruzerRedkruzer (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A museum, whether open to the public or not, that houses the art of a single, non-notable artist, is more of a private gallery than a museum. And the fact that the building is used to house various public performances is of little value in this discussion; that just indicates the building is a convenient location for such events. This discussion must focus on the significance of the building itself -- on whether this building is a significant historic artifact. Redkruzer owns the building, so his opinions must be taken with a grain of salt. Opinions of reliable third parties must be given more weight. The fact that there was a congregation on this site in 1750 seems irrelevant, as this building is stated as having been completed in 1889, so it is clearly not the same building that housed the 1750 congregation. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A museum is an institution that cares for (conserves) a collection of artifacts and other objects of scientific, artistic, cultural, or historical importance and makes them available for public viewing through exhibits that may be permanent or temporary.[1] … Museums have varying aims, ranging from serving researchers and specialists to serving the general public. The continuing acceleration in the digitization of information, combined with the increasing capacity of digital information storage, is causing the traditional model of museums (i.e. as static “collections of collections” of three-dimensional specimens and artifacts) to expand to include virtual exhibits and high-resolution images of their collections for perusal, study, and exploration from any place with Internet.[citation needed] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum The Meeting House is a small private museum that houses well beyond The Melvin Goldfield Collection. WikiDan61 appears to overlook the references to Jasper Brinton’s desk, Knoll’s Platner’s chairs , Knoll’s Saarinen Table which are on display among other Artist’s works . Again, it is a museum of imagination. The imaginAIRium is a museum for the creative arts. It is a physical & virtual museum to display talent & for talent to have a stage. I explained why it was a museum in response to editors requests.

It is not merely a building, nor this building. It is the historical location too on which the building is built and, perhaps, rebuilt. The cemetery is a significant part of the building, the location & the property.

Significant notable publications detail the historical significance of the building, it’s cemetery & it’s history. Volume 34 (1910 of the The Pennsylvania Historical Commission’s collections of its own Pennsylvania Magazine of History & Biography significantly describe the pre - revolutionary history of the property.

The Wast Vincent News (Refrence 8 in this WIKI article) : East Vincent News, Volume 6 Issue 2, May 2009 devotes a full page to the property & building, with 2 photos of the building , inside & out. The exterior photo includes the cemetery on the foreground and The Meeting House standing behind the cemetery. The article is authored by Dr. Robert W. Price of The East Vincent Historical Society. The reference provided in the article, apparently has been removed or submerged by East Vincent Township, but they were happy to provide me with a copy Friday. I will republish it shortly & provide the editors with the URL. To be continued …. Hy aka Redkruzer (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)RedKruzzerRedkruzer (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC) Redkruzer (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)RedKruzerRedkruzer (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this just looks way too promotional to me. Almost all of the sources are not independent of the law firm, thus are not considered reliable. The best source is the 1845 text which was reprinted (as a primary source) in 1910. - It only mentions the church in passing, and it is not about the present building, and only distantly related to the present congregation which is now located elsewhere. The important date here is 1889 when the current building was built.
Further I think the author misunderstands the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to write an WP:NPOV encyclopedia. Quoting him from above "leading to the deletion of my 40+ year law practiceWIKI page." It was not HIS page which smacks of WP:Ownership. Also please see WP:COI which very strongly discourages him from editing the article, and WP:Notpromotion.
Finally, in the context of Chester County, the building is simply not notable. Somebody should promptly remove the word "landmark" from the article, it just screams "advertisement." Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Redkruzer: Fine, your building is a museum, according to the definition of the term. But it is not a notable museum unless anyone actually cares about its collection. If any reliable, independent source has written about this building as a museum (and by independent, we would need to see coverage beyond the local listing of events happening there, but someone actually writing about this museum and its collection of art and artifacts). The fact that you happen to own some nice antiques does not make for a notable museum unless some reliable source has written about your fine collection of antiques. In short, lacking any reliable sources covering this building as a museum, its existence as a museum is not notable. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. ( directed to smallbones, initially).That is perhaps as arrogant piece of blasphemy ( as in Sir Francis Bacon’s usage) that a Wiki editor would make and not expect to be challenged or arrested. I will explain in more detail, with more supportive facts and less mere opinion than the preceding paragraph in the next few days.hy aka Redkruzer (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)RedKruzerRedkruzer (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the research promised above but serves to correct a offhand gratuitous inaccurate comment. re goldfield and WikiDan61's earlier comment: " ...A museum, whether open to the public or not, that houses the art of a single, non-notable artist …."

Melvin Goldfield, M.A. is surely not a non-notable artist.

His art was displayed, inter alia, in: the 1973 July -August issue of Art In America, the 1984 issue and on the Cover of Common Ground Magazine, inside full page in another Common Ground, a biography in Common Ground … Five Of Artist Goldfield's silk screens portraits of famous Chester County People hung for years in the main first floor corridor of the Chester County Courthouse.

Artist Goldfield is notable ALONE for Artist Goldfield’s life size cartoon sculpture of a hanging Gorilla, Rosie, with a life-size Owl, Al etched a top Rosie’s head. Rosie & Al are both together and at once, carved from a single local English Walnut Tree,( Mainly the crotch of the tree). They today are on exhibit at The imaginAIRium Physical Museum, hanging from the ceiling, suspended there, by her grip on high school rings attached to chains dropping from the 18 foot high imaginAIRium ceiling in The Meeting House. Rosie & Al were likewise on display for months at Peoples Light & Theater Company and given a 2 page color display in their performance Brochure. Hundreds of Mr. Goldfield’s works are hung in private collections, many as a result of a significant commission. I have photographed one such notable collection in a private residence in Hilton Head, South Carolina. A CD was recently released wherein Mr. Goldfield's large oil painting : Octopus Releasing in The Midnight Sky, was the album cover.

Mr. Goldfield is often discussed in Ingrid Croce’s book on Jim Croce. Ingrid, an artist herself, bought several waterfall pastels from Melvin Goldfield, M.A. Jim did likewise.

Noah Torno a former head of the Royal Ontario Museum’s Board of Director’s, and while holding that position, bought, after purchasing one of Artist Melvin Goldfield’s Frog Mandala(s) silk screens, 6 more in varying colors. hy aka Redkruzer (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)RedKruzerRedkruzer (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC) added sentence about Artist Goldfield's large Octopus oil painting. hy akaRedkruzer (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)RedKruzerRedkruzer (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Added another sentence to the above, & also within the above, relative to dismissal of the offered concept that Melvin Goldfield M.A. was a "...non-notable artist …." Not. hy aka Redkruzer (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)RedKruzerRedkruzer (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The claim "Calling an 1889 building in Chester County "historic" is just laughable..." not only is sarcasm and not, therefore, meeting WIKI standards. It is inaccurate & wrong. The present Meeting House Building is one & one quarter century old. It is a significant architectural achievement. A 30 by 50 foot space, with 18 foot high original tin ceiling and NO BEAMS is a rare and unique building, especially given the tools the mennonite farming community had in 1889.I am told the building hangs by it's roof. It rises, almost or, as high as the 18 foor first floor below it. I think some of the terminology is gables, girders, post & beam construction. "The typical Quaker meetinghouse is a two-story wood-frame ..." http://www.sacredplaces.org/PSP-InfoClearingHouse/articles/Quaker%20Meetinghouse%20Architecture.htm The Vincent Mennonite Church aka The Meeting House Law Building & Gallery is consructed of 2 foot thick stone walls.

It is: A Landmark Building. It sits on top of a long hill above Spring City, above the School River Valley, south of it. It sits on land higher than all land within at a hundred yards of it's 360 degree radius. It is a landmark building. One need only to look at any decent map of the area to understand that The Meeting House is indeed a landmark building.�

It is The Mennonite Church for which the street that leads to it from it's original farmer community was and is called, and remains called, "Mennonite Church Road. The articles reference to the 1845 writing :Sketch of Vincent Township (PMHB, Vol. XXXIV (1910), January, April & July editions), Frederick Sheeder, 1845 repeatedly uses the Vincent Mennonite Church as a landmark to describe and illustrate the area then under discussion. I will publish photos from the next texts, of the relevent publications named below. There are many more, but here is a start: 30,000 acres: Vincent and Pikeland Townships, 1686 to 1850, Author: Estelle Cremers,1989. At p. 40, Ms Cremers records that " 1735 - Vincent Mennonite Meeting". After listing 16 churchs, Author Cremers (of 4 local history books: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1?ie=UTF8&field-author=Estelle+Cremers&search-alias=books&text=Estelle+Cremers&sort=relevancerank) , which list records that " 1735 - Vincent Mennonite Meeting" was & is the second oldest church in an area broader than E & W Vincent Township & Pikeland Township. Ms Cremers notes in bold print, surrounded by >> & << marks:"More than any legal reference, these first eight churches proves the extent and earl date of sttlement in the area." At page 41, the text devotes the top paragraph to the important history of The Vincent Meeting of The Vincent Mennonite Church. Also at page 41, lower, there is an aditional, longer paragraph about "Vincent or Rhodes Meetinghouse. After noting the replacement on the same land ( at the high land corner of Skookill Rd & Mennonite Church Road) from house to the present building in 1889, (125 years ago before today & 154 years after the founding of the Meeting and nearly 3 centuries before today the text notes :"It is now(1989) the office of Mayerson, Gerasimowicz & Munsing, attorneys." Refrence 8 of the this article, being considered for deletion, cites to East Vincent News, Volume 6 Issue 2, May 2009. I will publish a JPG of East Vincent News, Volume 6 Issue 2, May 2009. In closing it advises, "the meetinghouse office is a perfect example of historic preservation and adoptive reuse. His stately building remains intact for all to see and recall the glorious achievements of yesteryear while it continues to perform a useful service for the modern generation. Preservation of grand old buildings like this is vital for our community, for once they are gone Dr. Robert W Price East Vincent Historical Commission"

The "Spring City Centennial" 1967 is a historical look back by Spring City, the borough adjoining East Vincent Township. This 1967 publication devotes a page and 1/2 to The Vincent Mennonite Church, with a vintage photo of The Meeting House. It details the history of the congregation & of The meeting House. I wish to thank Orlady for the compilation "See [5][6][7][8]. " I believe it more relevant than the backhand comment dismissing them by WikiDan61. Additionaly I filmed Michael Bacon, 1/2 of the "Bacon Brother's Band" in The Meeting House in the late 70s. A short time later I filmed Michael at The Main Point" where his brother, Kevin Bacon & John Ostroff worked as my gaffers in filming Michael. Richard Fagan whose 1975ish video (http://vimeo.com/5485921) is referred to as reference 14 which is a film I had shot (1975ish) in the imaginAIRium for a party celebrating life. Several of Richie's songs became # 1 country hits. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Fagan. I will publish the pages from Phila Magazine, (Article Refrence 15 : Philadelphia Magazine, March 1977) supporting it's cover story on new video uses. That article in 1977 not only discusses The Meeting House in some detail, it uses a photo of the inside of The Meeting House to illustrate in part what the article was describing about The Meeting House. Interestingly the man photographed playing the banjo was Bill Reid aka Leroy Brown of he song Leroy Brown. The name Leroy Brown was a name of a friend Jim Croce met while in the Army reserves, but the antics (as described in detail In Ingrid's book about Jim's antics, mostly with Bill) were all Bill. i.e the diamond pinkies he always wore under evrybody's nose was Billies ring (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3neqZN_ss5k and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEEc-KMhPiU). The line All the ladies call him tree top lover, all the men just call him SIR" was all Billy. Someday, ask me to tell a specific story about that line & Bill. Channels 3, 6. & 10 (ABC,NBC & CBS Phila affiliates were regulary filming Sgt Chas. E Hartz, in the Meeting House's imaginAIRium while the litigation raged. I shot video of them being there & them videoing me and Charlie. Charlie was the lead plaintiff in the class action ( the brief supporting the complaint's class actions & the complaint were written in The imaginAIRium in Spring City, where I signed them before filing in the Phila USDC , before it's removal to NYC). I believe that Sgt Hartz was the only witness to testify in the Agent Orange Class Action, as he knew he would die, from the dioxin Viet Nam poisoning causing his brain tumor & labotomy. Sgt Hartz was one of the first persons to be videoed for trial prior to trial. As the case settled on the first day of the scheduled trial but after his death, he was the only witness who testified as I recall. OMNI magazine did a major story, including color photographs, on Agent Orange, the class action,what it was about. I am proud of how the article handled my participation in the litigation, specifically detailing how I located & worked with Ronald Codario,M.D. who then became the veteran's main expert witness. I will produce in a URL the entire article. I cited to The Declaration of Independence in large letters across the top of the black monolithic file cabinets at the far end of The Meeting House, because I BELIEVE IN IT & WHAT IT STANDS FOR. I wanted my clients not to have any doubt about what I would fight for. It was not for promotional use . My clients were already in my office in The Great Room where the Declaration rang out. I believe that the large photograph of our version of The Declaration depicting me on a ladder (at the journalists request) at the height of the Words was on the front page( as opposed to inside- ir could have been inside, but i think it was front page) of the Phila daily legal journal: The Legal Intelligencer. Again, I can find the photo to be sure it was on the front page. The article was published because I had received The National Sojourners (hhttp://www.freemasonry101.com/others/national-sojourners) Award for my Agent Orange work.

I'm tired & going to sleep now, but will continue this detailing of the importance of the Meeting House as a historically important building and property in American History, especially to The Mennonites, and continued as an important Meeting House for lawyers & injured people fighting for critical safety rights of Americans, nationwide & worldwide, unless WikiDan61 apologizes and withdraws this attempt to delete this article AND the corrects his prior deletion of The Mayerson Law Office,P.C. using as a basis, inter alia, claiming that I was a journey man lawyer. I would except the apologies. I submit that WIKI standards suggest the apologies in light of the material supplied above since WikiDan61's move for deletion.

hy aka 68.83.240.47 (talk) 06:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)RedKruzer68.83.240.47 (talk) 06:24, 30 May 2014 (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/The_Meeting_House_Law_Building_%26_Gallery&oldid=1075702583"