Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Gage

Richard Gage

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)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)