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. Nominating account has been blocked as a sockpuppet. BJ^Talk 02:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Les Henderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Not Notable Munchkin77 (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Uh, keep. Avruch ^T 15:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Munchkin77 seems to have a personal interest in the subject matter, judging by his or her edit history. Keep. Munchkin78 (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note both Munchkin77 (talk · contribs) and Munchkin78 (talk · contribs) were created on March 9, 2009. Both users have edited almost exclusively the Les Henderson article. Something is going on here. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Notability established. Jonathunder (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. These Munchkin accounts severely butchered a reasonably well-referenced text. Restored. Twri (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Unless there is an explanation forthcoming as to why this would be non-notable, the nom did not provide a valid reason for deletion. The ample referencing proves WP:GNG is met. -Mgm|^(talk) 23:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Some of the sources are inappropriate for a WP:BLP but the subject is still notable according to our BIO guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 07:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• regarding Non-notability: The article is based on three claims of notability, but they all fail the established rubric.1) That Henderson is an author. Both of his books are self published therefore they do not meet notability guidelines. The fact that a recognized publisher did not pick up the books for publication indicates. 2) That his website is used by government sources and in news reports. Being interviewed for a news story does qualify as notable or every witness to an accident would have a Wikipedia article. And the government sources he lists are nothing more than a long list of sites that list his site as one of many links. That is not endorsement by the agency, but rather evidence the government sites’ webmasters found his site in a search. 3) That he has been sued as a result of his books. Being sued does not establish notability or every neighbor who has been sued for a fallen tree would have a Wikipedia article.Munchkin77 (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the tone of your edits and the fact that you have only ever edited this article, it would seem that you have a personal interest. Please review WP:COI. Munchkin78 (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Being sued does make you notable if it gets reported. SpinningSpark 16:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it doesn't if it's just the one event. Many lawsuits for small issues are reported in a newspaper. You list one newspaper and several websites. Websites, especially those that are user editable, do not constitute notability.Munchkin77 (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. Notability is demonstrated. - 7-bubёn >t 17:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notability established and verified by significant (less than exclusive, more than trivial) coverage in multiple reliable sources. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  06:04, 2 April 2009 (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.