Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Haney

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. Randykitty (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Gary Haney

Gary Haney (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)

Overly promotional CV full of dishonesty and inaccuracies. egs

Claim, "has influenced academic approaches to the teaching of mega structure design as well as shaping the techniques used in supertall building construction." Sources that supposedly support this claim. 1."Press Room < About Us: Lafarge" A press release about him giving a lecture. Does not support your claim. 2.Northeastern University. The study itself. Does not support the claim.

Burj Khalifa completed 2008, tip height 829.8 m. Yet it claims about Al Hamra Tower, "Completed in 2011, the building consists of 77 floors and, at 412 meters (1,351 ft), the tower stands as the tallest building in the Middle East." Source used to support this falsehood, CTBUH. Supports completion date, Height is close, says three more floors, no mention of it being the tallest of anywhere.

"He is also known for civic and government building design work such as the Smithsonian redesign" Source merely has a quote from him as a "design partner for Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, the architects for the redesign." Nothing about what it's claimed he is known for.

Sourcing is primary, promotional or passing mentions. The entire U.S. Census Bureau Headquarters has four sources, at least three do not even mention Haney. (The other ISBN matches a different book.)
Peacocked claim of "His design and research work has contributed to significant breakthroughs in tall building efficiency and materials use." is sourced to his work, not to any evidence of breakthroughs or influence.
Deceptively sourced promotional BLP do not belong on Wikipedia. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. This article is encyclopedic, and in response to being questioned about the COI and G11 tags he placed at the top of the page, an editor did not meaningfully engage and instead proposed the article for speedy deletion. I (not the article's author) contested the speedy deletion, asked for clarity, and now the same editor has proposed AfD. It's all too fast, with no opportunity to discuss or address potential issues in the article, if indeed those criticisms have merit; we're hearing them for the first time in sufficient detail to respond. The subject of the page is notable, and has designed several notable buildings; that in of itself should be enough to survive deletion. It does sound like there's either an error in the claim about whether one building is "tallest," or (more likely?) a dispute about measurement (highest occupied floor vs. tallest architectural detail vs. tallest concrete building as distinct from tallest building, etc.), but such issues should be tagged as _dubious/disputed_ or raised in the Talk page. Errors in a handful of facts do not justify deletion of an article on a notable subject. I don't think there's much question that the subject is "known for civic and government building design work"; perhaps it needs better sourcing, but doesn't make it "dishonest" or "inaccurate," it just makes it [potentially] poorly sourced, which can be improved. jhawkinson (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

"has designed several notable buildings". He was an employee who was part of a team that did so (often as leader), working for an employer that designs buildings. The errors actually reveal what this article is, original research. They show Wedge did not get the info from the sources he used as references. He wrote his own personal take then found sources that sometimes sort of matches what he wrote. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• Article Creator's Response to Duffbeerforme's AFD Nomination

I will not vote on the article I wrote, but think it is appropriate to respond to the nominator's claims. It seems duffbeerforme is using the AFD process for what should be standard revisioning and talk page conversation. Early stage sourcing or inaccuracy issues are not grounds for deletion: cf:

If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.

Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.

Why are we going straight to AFD on an article that has been up for two years?

However, to acknowledge and address the AFD arguments at hand...

1. Haney is a figure known to anyone following contemporary architecture, be they interested layperson or academic. Please notice the nominator's AFD argument does not acknowledge the architectural importance of the portfolio of designs (Al Hamra, Smithsonian redesign, Bancomer, etc,) or consistent major coverage in the press (NYT, Washington Post, etc.), but chooses to lean on hyperbolic and ad hominem claims of authorial intention like "peacocking," "dishonesty," or "Curriculum Vitae," to address early stage sourcing and inaccuracy issues.

2. Some changes were made to address the nominator's (legitimate) editorial observations, to correct minor tonal errors and provide further clarity. These are certainly reasonable edits he suggests, but they are not grounds for deletion!

A further detail of recent edits made to address Duffbeerforme's concerns is as follows...

Overly promotional CV full of dishonesty and inaccuracies. egs

Regarding CV claim, a list of buildings designed by an architect is just a list that would likely also appear on his CV. Not sure if there is any other way around that. Two things here:

1) I think it is a relatively reasonable assumption of good faith that this is an accurate listing by the firm as these are multi-million dollar projects for which they would be sued through the roof by competitors and contractors were they to claim falsely.

2) Not sure how else to cite the entire design portfolio other than to pull from the list on the SOM website, admittedly, a primary source. I will go through and cite each building individually should the AFD reviewer deem it necessary, however, this level of scrutiny has not been applied on other similar architect pages so I'm not going to go through and do it for each one unless it is necessary.

Claim, "has influenced academic approaches to the teaching of mega structure design as well as shaping the techniques used in supertall building construction." Sources that supposedly support this claim. 1."Press Room < About Us: Lafarge" A press release about him giving a lecture. Does not support your claim. 2.Northeastern University. The study itself. Does not support the claim.

Though the claim of influence is not unreasonable (I seriously doubt any of my architecture colleagues would argue it), I have revised to say (albeit conservatively now): "His design and research work is cited in the study of tall building efficiency and materials use practices." The Lafarge source was elided. A good catch there by Duffbeerforme.

Burj Khalifa completed 2008, tip height 829.8 m. Yet it claims about Al Hamra Tower, "Completed in 2011, the building consists of 77 floors and, at 412 meters (1,351 ft), the tower stands as the tallest building in the Middle East." Source used to support this falsehood, CTBUH. Supports completion date, Height is close, says three more floors, no mention of it being the tallest of anywhere.

Revised now at the opening of the article to: "which currently holds the record for being the tallest concrete structure in Kuwait, and 23rd worldwide." And to "Kuwait" further down. Perhaps 23rd in the world is not sufficient notability for Duffbeerforme, and an inaccuracy sufficient for page deletion, but it might be helpful to note that as of 2017 there were over 1,319 two-hundred-meter-plus buildings in the world. 23rd is a serious achievement! One does not design a structure this high without being one of the foremost contemporary architects in the world.

"He is also known for civic and government building design work such as the Smithsonian redesign" Source merely has a quote from him as a "design partner for Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, the architects for the redesign." Nothing about what it's claimed he is known for. Sourcing is primary, promotional or passing mentions. The entire U.S. Census Bureau Headquarters has four sources, at least three do not even mention Haney. (The other ISBN matches a different book.)

Please re-read the New York Times article. He is the lead architect for the Smithsonian redesign. This claim is not only supported further down the subject's page, but edited now to support initially here as well. NYT article states in paragraph 7: "All this was done in the redesign by Gary P. Haney and the architectural firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill; the building’s 44-year-old infrastructure has also been overhauled." Subject of article's full name is Gary Paul Haney, hence, "Gary P. Haney." Redesign of the Smithsonian is a major architectural and cultural undertaking. Do you disagree, Duffbeerforme?

Peacocked claim of "His design and research work has contributed to significant breakthroughs in tall building efficiency and materials use." is sourced to his work, not to any evidence of breakthroughs or influence.

Revised to "His design and research work is cited in the study of tall building efficiency and materials use practices." See revision above. Or "...has influenced academic approaches to the teaching of mega structure design and supertall building construction." I'm not sure how this needs further clarification. If it is good enough for Northwestern to dedicate an entire semester to it, I think it should be good enough for Duffbeerforme.

Deceptively sourced promotional BLP do not belong on Wikipedia.

The awards and honors section and the portfolio does need more thorough, non-primary source citation and cleanup. That is a very good point and it will be a good area for continued development.

Finally, if this is article on a significant contemporary figure in architecture does not now meet notability or editorial standards, I wonder what Duffbeerforme 's metric is? Because his does not seem in line with the wikipedia standard. Many of Haney's peers, many of whom have less substantial design portfolios, are longstanding BLP subjects on wikipedia. Why is this an AFD discussion and not standard revisioning commenting on the talk page? Vincent Wedge (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)Vincent Wedge

Comment. That's quite a massive wall of text. In it you claim "consistent major coverage in the press (NYT, Washington Post, etc.)," Where is it then? Why haven't you included in the article. Let's look at the first, NYT. I found his name a total of two times in NYT. Both time it is simply a quote from him as a mouthpiece of his firm. No major coverage about him. And that's a recurring thing. There is a lack of independent coverage about him, the core of WP:GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Really tricky to untangle this one, but it does look like a coi article with loads of peackocking and synthesis of importance. On the face of it the article makes a claim to significance in the lead and looks well referenced and that is usually enough. But digging around in the article creators history, the home webpage of his employer and looking at some of the refs leads me to a delete conclusion. I haven't read much of the conversation above other than to assume that much chat means something unusual is going on so I gave it a deeper look. Szzuk (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Err, "the home webpage of his employer"? Puzzled how that make sense, either if you literally mean the article creator's employer (University of Utah?) or meant to say the subject's employer (SOM). I suspect the long text above merely reflects one person's unfamiliarity with Wikipedia AfD's. I do think that one issue here is that architects of buildings are not a topic that's written much about, so it can be hard to ascertain (and justify) notability without original research. To pick one out of a hat, compare Harry Cobb and see how meager that page is, yet his notability is an order of magnitude greater. To me that topical obscurity favors leniency. I'd like to ask about this on Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Architecture but want to be sensitive to WP:CANVASS. jhawkinson (talk) 11:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm open to changing my vote if expert opinion from the project offers insight, suggest you just mention the debate is taking place but nothing else or someone will complain. Szzuk (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Strike own vote per discussion below. Szzuk (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

jhawkinson. "I do think that one issue here is that architects of buildings are not a topic that's written much about, so it can be hard to ascertain (and justify) notability without original research." And there is the issue. Not written about, WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, ...", so no GNG. If you can't do it without original research then you can't do it because "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research." duffbeerforme (talk) 04:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - unless the article is wildly inaccurate, I don't doubt that he is notable, but the current version doesn't present this well. It is partly that large-project architecture these days tends to credit the firm - in this case the huge and very famous Skidmore, Owings & Merrill - rather than the individual. The article doesn't even seem to say when he joined SOM (ok, 1987). There must be dozens of articles in and interviews with the architectural press that would (rightly or wrongly) better meet WP's idea of an RS. For example he is one of only 3 SOM partners to get his own para in this piece. Needs more and better referencing, but I'm not pursuaded by the deleters. Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - I can't see that it is so "exclusively promotional" that G-11 kicks in. As Haney is certainly "notable" and "the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view", I'd suggest revision would be "preferable to deletion". More and better sourcing, certainly. Removal of promotion, certainly. But wiping it out, no. One other thought: the main author hasn't declared a COI, so per AGF, I'm assuming they don't have one. But I wonder if clearly stating this, which I don't think has been done to date, might provide reassurance for editors with understandable concerns. KJP1 (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Some sourcing suggestions. Not all ideal but some may assist. Apologies if there's any duplication with already quoted sources, but I think they give an idea of Notability. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. KJP1 (talk) 06:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The refs are indicating notability so I've struck my delete vote, the article can just be tagged for cleanup etc, thank you for your input, Szzuk (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the ref bomb. 1, "Featured Member", not independent. 2, Has quotes from him as the companies mouthpiece, does not make for notability. 3, "text supplied by SOM. 4, Has quote from him as the companies mouthpiece, does not make for notability. 5, Has quotes from him as the companies mouthpiece, does not make for notability. 6, Has quotes from him as the companies mouthpiece, does not make for notability. 7, announcement of a lecture, not independent. 8, by Haney. 9. Merely lists his name as part of the design team "Gary Haney Design Partner". 10, announcement of a lecture, not independent. 11, Three sentences and a name in a list. Student publication? 12, "The renovation architects, led by Gary Haney of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill," that's it, passing mention. 13. Has quotes from him as the companies mouthpiece, does not make for notability. 14, Has quotes from him as the companies mouthpiece, does not make for notability. 15, Has quote from him as the companies mouthpiece, does not make for notability.

And the recurring thing continues. There is a lack of independent reliable coverage about him, the core of WP:GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate that there's an element of judgement in these matters, but to me you're setting the bar too high. KJP1 (talk) 05:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see it as me setting the bar, It's been there for a long time. The keep votes here are just WP:ITSNOTABLE. None have given a policy based justification for that claim. How is he certainly notable? duffbeerforme (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Can we not spread the discussion between two sections of the same page, please? The original AfD (and the speedy) cited a number of reasons for getting rid of this article, but notability was not one of them. Consequently, responses, including mine, did not focus on notability. You keep changing the argument out from under the respondents, and that's not fair. My anecdotal assessment of notability comes from a conversation with a local urban planner about a new government building SOM received the award for, and speculation about who the principal-in-charge was; Gary Haney was the first person suggested, on the strength of his past work. Now, does that personal, anecdotal assessment of notability parley into WP:N? Of course it's not direct. One requirement is "significant coverage," which is "more than a trivial mention." Generally architects of building don't get mentioned at all, so the fact that he's mentioned in the NYT piece about PSAC II and the WaPo piece about the National Museum of American History meets my test for significant coverage (in the NYT piece on the same building, his leadership role is more clearly identified). Again, as KJP1 says, there's an element of judgement. Next, reliability of sources; no concern there. Secondary sources? I would WP:IGNORE that because of the way architecture is (not) covered in the popular press, as well as a general disdain for the idea that secondary sources are superior to primary ones, but it's not necessary to do that since there's no question about the secondariness of the above sources required to establish notability of the subject (and notability is a property of the subject, not of the article, so importing masses of information from a primary source does not take away from notability). p.s.: throwing out "ref bomb" and "wall of text" pejoratively makes your argumentation feel like ranting, and diminishes your effectiveness. jhawkinson (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

"Can we not spread the discussion between two sections of the same page, please?" huh? I reply directly, chucking replies from different places away from those places does not follow. "The original AfD (and the speedy)" The speedy was rejected, it is no longer relevant. Constant references to it are irrelevant and needlessly distracting. "The original AfD (and the speedy) cited a number of reasons for getting rid of this article, but notability was not one of them." An oversight on my part, touched on but not made clear, corrected by later comments. "Consequently, responses, including mine, did not focus on notability." AfD comments should focus on notability, after I corrected my oversight others that had commented can reply to the ongoing discussion. "You keep changing the argument out from under the respondents, and that's not fair." I made one correction, I did not keep changing. What's not fair, this is not a contest. It's a discussion where things can change. Discussions are meant to address things and change and move. "My anecdotal assessment of notability comes from a conversation with ..." Please see WP:OR. "Now, does that personal, anecdotal assessment of notability parley into WP:N? Of course it's not direct." Of course it does not. "Generally architects of building don't get mentioned at all," Generally so many people doing their jobs do not get mentioned. "meets my test for significant coverage" Your test is different to Wikipedia's. He is Identified there because part of his job there was to make comments to the media on behalf of his employer. "as KJP1 says, there's an element of judgement." Yes KJP1 does say that, But judgement about what exactly? "Secondary sources? I would WP:IGNORE that because of the way architecture is (not) covered in the popular press". So you choose to ignore basic Wikipedia policy because? If it's not covered what makes it notable? "there's no question about the secondariness of the above sources required to establish notability of the subject " Mostly, but that's a strawman. No one questioned the "secondariness", just the complete and utter lack of depth of coverage about Haney. PS. I'm of the opinion that ref bomb and wall of text were appropriate and useful in context, they were not thrown out pejoratively. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• User:Duffbeerforme, I don't think you are familiar with how WP notability works for architects. What do they do? Apart from ancillary stuff, they build buildings. Coverage of buildings for which someone was chief architect goes towards the notability of that person. Duffbeerforme seems to have an axe to grind here, with language like "companies mouthpiece". Do companies design buildings? No, architects do. If the chief architect is interviewed, does that make him the "companies mouthpiece". When politicians are interviewed, are they usefully called the "party's mouthpiece"? Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

"Do companies design buildings? No, architects do." Teams of architects employed by a company do, assisted by engineers, designers, artists etc. Would anyone build a tall building designed entirely by Haney? Hell No. He is an architect, not an engineer, a big building like that needs a team that have multiple different specialties. Re. politicians, If they are commenting on party issues yes they are. So how does WP notability works for architects? duffbeerforme (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Teams have leaders. The relevant policy is WP:CREATIVE, which was not exactly written with architects in mind, but includes:

1. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
2. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

This Afd should mainly concern itself with these criteria (though there are others he might meet). So far it has mostly not. Btw, the speedy nom as spam was clearly ridiculous. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

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.