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. --MelanieN (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Henderson (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)

Also pinging Giraffedata. Despite the editor's recent acclaim in the media, this appears to be a cut and dry, classic case of WP:BLP1E ... reliable sources only cover Henderson in the context of a single event (or in this case group of thousands of events, but same idea), Henderson remains and is likely to remain a low-profile individual - defined here as one who "who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event" and who do not seek media attention (this certainly applies to Henderson), and the event or individual's role was either not substantial or, in this case, not well documented. We certainly do not have an article about Wikipedia's systematic eradication of "comprised of", nor should we, so there is no indication that clause three will ever be met. Consequently, absent another compelling argument that he meets or will meet WP:GNG, this article should be deleted. All the best. Go Phightins! 21:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per BLP1E. The news coverage is singular in time and not sustained (persistence of coverage, clause #3). Henderson is a low profile individual (clause #2). Henderson is only known in regards to this event (clause #1). BLP1E is meant to protect low profile individuals from being saddled for life with a public article anyone can edit due to a singular news event they never sought out. -- GreenC 22:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have to disagree with your last statement. ...due to a singular event they never sought out. Henderson gave a phone interview to Backchannel published here, in which he even shared large amounts of personal information. (See the four paragraphs starting with "Henderson was born in Olympia, ...") News outlets don't take interviews just for fun, they do it so they can prepare and publish an article on the subject. Henderson would have known in all consciousness what he was up to. (Article creator), SD0001 (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The journalist in question sought this editor out; the attention was unsolicited. Yes, Henderson granted an interview. That does not constitute "seeking attention", only complying with a request for information. If we begin to define that behaviour as "seeking out attention", literally everyone we've ever heard of that we haven't met will fit that description, up to and including new babies on the local Vital Stats page. Laodah 06:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laodah (talk • contribs)
• Delete - have to agree with WP:BLP1E --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as well as agreeing with the comments by Green Cardamom above, I note that there is a section describing Henderson in the "comprised of" article. I think that is sufficent coverage and a separate article is unnecessary. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There seem to be a very large number of articles on WP that violate WP:BLP1E. For example, in this article, there is just one WP:RS that covers the subject prominently. (Without any doubt, this is singular and non-persisting type of coverage) All other cited refs are either statistical pages or information pages from primary sources. SD0001 (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's an elected politician. See WP:NPOL. He would almost surely pass an AfD. Obviously anything is debatable but we shouldn't debate WP:OTHERSTUFF here. FYI, BLP1E is one of most common rationales for AfD. Please don't take it personal you did nothing wrong. The guidelines are complex and takes some experience with AfD to understand the nuances. No one is picking on Henderson. Do a search on "BLP1E" at this page to see how often it comes up in currently open AfD discussions. -- GreenC 13:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, obviously. I'm a fan of Mr. Henderson's efforts to improve the grammar of this site, and appreciate that the author(s) of the page mean well, but WP:BLP1E most definitely applies here. 28bytes (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obvious WP:BLP1E is obvious. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:30, 21 February 2015 (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.