Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Henderson

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. W.marsh 18:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Les Henderson

Henderson doesn't meet the notability guidelines. His only claim to "fame" seems to be self-publishing two books and being involved in a couple of lawsuits. SandyHand 15:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While that may be his only claim to fame, his claim to notability certainly warrants a Wikipedia article, as evidenced by the sources cited in the article. He has been the primary subject of several different references in reliable sources for separate reasons. I see no issue with keeping this article, given the sources listed in the article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This has been User:SandyHand's only contribution. Assuming good faith & that he/she is not a sockpuppet, how does he/she have enough experience of guidelines to nominate this? --Beloved Freak 17:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The good-faith answer is that they are a long-time IP contributor who has recently created an account. I didn't say that was the true answer, just the one based on good faith... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Subject has been mentioned in independent secondary source, including the New York Post and at least one book. [1] --Beloved Freak 17:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's a pretty well known consumer activist. I'm also suspicious of User:SandyHand's motivation as the article HAS been repeatedly vandalised. Shritwod 08:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I haven’t been around Wikipedia too long, but I don’t think being mentioned once in a New York Post article and once in a local paper makes him notable. Looks like the guy is just using Wikipedia to promote his books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemesullivan (talk • contribs) 16:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In response to User:BelovedFreak’s comment: I’m a real boy, not a sockpuppet! I travel a lot and use a wireless card in my laptop, and I never bothered to register with WP before – it just didn’t seem important. Obviously, now I wish I had. Given my lack of verifiable history, I can understand User:Shritwod’s suspicion of my motives, but I have never made any contributions or changes to Henderson’s article. I came to the article by way of Lou Pearlman after hearing about him in the news.

Here’s why I think Henderson isn’t notable.

1. He had to publish his books himself. Not one publisher would put out either of his books. Doesn’t that tend to show that the works aren’t notable or of interest to the general public?

2. He hasn’t received press coverage on his own. While he has been mentioned in the New York Post, the Gainesville Sun and the Orlando Weekly, all of those articles were primarily about someone else. Look at the titles: “Louie Wasn’t ’N Sync,” “Book: Crist Tried to Whitewash Probe” and “Pearlman’s Jihad.” The Washington Post was also listed as a source, but the free article preview doesn’t mention Henderson. (Maybe he’s somewhere in the rest of the article, but I didn’t want to pay to find out.)

3. Lawsuits don’t confer notability. Yes, Henderson sued Pearlman. But if being involved in some kind of legal action were reason enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, we’d have to deal with a bunch of frivolous articles. (More than we already do, I mean!)

4. Several references are iffy. Are unjustis.co.uk, fraudsandscams.com and crimes-of-persuasion.com – the subject’s own site – reliable sources?

If you publish a book accusing a famous person of something, you’re bound to get some media attention – that’s the sort of thing reporters live for! I have no idea if the stuff in Henderson’s books is true or not, and I don’t think it matters here.

I don’t have anything against this guy personally – in fact, I admire his persistence and dedication. I think he definitely has a place in Wikipedia – as a part of the Lou Pearlman article, maybe. I just don’t think he’s notable in his own right. SandyHand 18:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to respond to these:

1. Simply because one aspect of a person's life does not make them notable, does not mean they aren't notable for other reasons. For example: David Berkowitz was a postal worker. To say that he can't have an article because he was a postal worker is silly. Likewise, simply because this guy published his own books means that he can't be notable for that reason. Just like Berkowitz was notable for reasons OTHER than being postal worker, Les Henderson can be notable for reasons OTHER than being a self-published author.

2. No where in the notability guidelines does it say that the coverage must be by ones self. Wikipedia guidelines only say that the corverage is multiple (he is in the media for several different events) and non-trivial (while he is not the sole item covered in the articles, his coverage was significant), and in reliable sources (The New York Post, Washington Post, Orlando Journal Sentinel, etc. are all notable)

3. Really? While not every lawsuit confers notability, some certainly DO. Consider Dred Scott, whose sole notability comes from a lawsuit.

4. True, but that calls for cleanup, not deletion. While there are some sources of iffy reliability, there are also some sources of unquestionable reliability. The existance of bad sources does not cancel out the existance of good sources.

The fact remains that notability is not determined by the substance of WHY a person is notable. According to the notability guidelines, what makes someone notable is nto what they did, but who NOTICED what they did and what the WROTE about it. If a subject has been a focus of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable sources, they are notable REGARDLESS of what they did to earn that coverage. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Obfuscating ones original destination computer IP via wireless aircards does not work for the USSS, dear Billiam. Neither does having Bulgarian DJ/webmaster friends. --SooperJoo 15:09, 13 October 2007 (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.