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. Consensus is that the subject has received insufficient coverage to be notable. Lookunderneath's opinion, according to which we should take into account the perceived importance of the subject's work even though coverage of him is lacking, is in conflict with WP:N and is discounted.  Sandstein  10:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Gage[edit]

Richard Gage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:BIO. Independent coverage of this person in reliable sources consists of trivial mentions and quotes, which is insufficient to establish notability. Hut 8.5 19:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In quote from NY Times, the quote isn't trivial if it's the only citation of an opposing point of view in attempting to achieve balance. Column inches is not the criterion. Lookunderneath (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Comment moved from talk page Hut 8.5 06:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

The criterion for determining whether coverage is non-trivial is how much it tells us about the subject. Here it tells us that he's an architect from California, and he founded Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. That is not non-trivial coverage, and is even covered here. You haven't demonstrated the need for an encyclopedia article about this person. Hut 8.5 06:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So the NYT and the BBC see Gage as notable enough to interview and show to millions, but wikipedia does not? Who'd have guessed? Have you taken a look at how many interviews he's given? There are videos where congresspeople talk about 'AE911truth' because they have had so many people asking them to review the information. A google search of "architects and engineers for 9/11 truth" returns 34,700 . . . I guess that isn't enough. bov (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being interviewed for a newspaper doesn't make you notable by Wikipedia standards (I think the NYT just quoted his press conference rather than interviewing him). Notability isn't determined by Google hits either, and if there is sourcing about Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth then the article should be about Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth rather than its founder (as I pointed out above we already have coverage of this group which mentions that Gage founded it). In order to establish notability we need sources which give non-trivial information about the subject per WP:N and we don't have it. Hut 8.5 19:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Financial Times article, it is Richard Gage making the impression on reporter Peter Barker, not Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. As Barker commented, “While I have seen this footage countless times, it seems that I had clearly never understood what I was seeing.” Lookunderneath (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All we actually learn about Gage from that article is that he's from San Francisco and that he founded Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This isn't significant coverage. Hut 8.5 13:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Gage EASILY falls within the wiki concept of "notable": 1) The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. 2) The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. He is an international speaker and expert on the subject. This attempt at deletion is an obvious attack by someone/some group who simply disagrees with Richard Gage and/or "9/11 Truth". (this is prevalent and pervasive throughout wikipedia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.85.42 (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"part of the enduring historical record" means they have "been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians". This hasn't happened. He didn't originate the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Hut 8.5 20:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a compelling story to tell about Richard Gage. It all has occurred in just two years. That no biographies have been written is unfortunate. The reasons for that deficiency are probably worthy for investigation and reporting as well. The story on Gage is along the following lines:

Richard Gage, a Bay Area architect, has become a prominent person in the International effort to find out what really happened at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. In a span of less than two years, he has gone from hearing about the possibility that there may have been explosives planted in the buildings, to founding and leading an organization with nearly 3,000 petition signers, including almost 500 architects and engineers.

The organization, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (ae911truth.org), and Gage in particular, is the leading voice challenging the government’s explanations for the collapses of the three WTC high-rise buildings. Gage’s role in this undertaking has been remarkable in both investigative and communicative skills.

As lead investigator by an informal team of volunteer specialists, Gage has pieced together information into an increasingly sophisticated hypothesis as to what must have happened in the collapses of the three buildings. Or, to put it more precisely, to explain why the explanations given by NIST could not have happened as reported. These explanations are included in formal written submittals in response to the NIST calls for comments.

As lead communicator, Gage has worked tirelessly to fine tune his standard presentation to make it more understandable to the lay public. For the past year, Gage has been featured speaker every other weekend throughout the United States, and occasionally in Canada. The speech has been adapted to a multimedia presentation on DVD, with sales of the new 2008 version surpassing 1,000 copies within 3 weeks of its release for the 7th anniversary of September 11. Lookunderneath (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that this version violates WP:NPOV, it is more than "unfortunate" that no-one has covered this person because Wikipedia guidelines demand that we only include people who have been covered in detail by sources. Hut 8.5 16:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon reviews are not an indicator of notability, neither are Google hits. Hut 8.5 16:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's how many American architects are listed on wikipedia whose notability is not questioned. Maybe we should start looking more closely at each of these. We can start with architect Ray Chi. 24.4.168.11 (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Most of the architects listed there either designed notable and significant structures or have received significant coverage in reliable sources. Gage has designed part of a high school and is now working on some office blocks and shops. Hut 8.5 17:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hut, Gtstricky, Rubin and Aude want to delete it, and 24.4.168.11 is kind of vague about his intentions? . I don't see much of a consensus, Hut. Wowest (talk) 06:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not determined by counting people on each side. Hut 8.5 16:19, 3 October 2008 (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