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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Henderson (pilot)[edit]

Joseph Henderson (pilot) (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)

Nothing but passing mentions. Written by a relative of the subject. Article appears to overstate the subject's importance by quite a bit. Much of it seems to be just WP:SYNTH of ship logs. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Þjarkur: please be careful not to add biographies to the "bibliographies" delsort. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The nomination seems to misrepresent the content of the article. The sources provided are not just passing mentions but include articles in respectable publications such as the New York Herald. These directly address the subject with titles like "Half a Century of Piloting - The late Joseph Henderson's extraordinary record of distress, accidents and lucky escapes." The subject is therefore notable per WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it's written by the paper, it is an obituary. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Such an obituary is an excellent source for our purposes as it is prima facie evidence of notability and provides a compact biography of the person's complete life – exactly the sort of summary that we want. The fact that this is not understood, further demonstrates the invalidity of the nomination. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Run of the mill individual doing a routine job. Most of the sources though in reputable publications are about ships which which Henderson just happened to be the pilot used. The obituary in the Brooklyn Eagle billed as a front page article, well have a look and see how many articles are on that page and what they deal with. This article is a vanity piece created by an editor intent on having a wikipedia page for every one of their ancestors Lyndaship (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article is on one of thousands of pilots, a handful of whom are notable. This ones importance has been inflated by a COI editor is a family member who has been plastering Joseph Henderson's name all over other articles, including the Brooklyn Bridge and Statue of Liberty, and making exaggerated claims about him. Aside from the editors who have been trying to clean this up, the article's sole editor is the COI editor. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL WP:SYNTH Netherzone (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as is to be expected for a memorial page created by one of his descendants, the article is rife with good old stories about his experiences, rather than encyclopedic notable achievements. Example:

  On October 28, 1872, Henderson, Captain of the New York pilot boat "Pet, No. 9", sighted the brig Emily during a heavy gale. The crew of the Emily came on board the pilot boat Pet, which lay by the brig until 7 p.m., at witch time the Emily capsized. It was not until the next day that the crew members were transferred from the Pet to the steamship Italy, from Liverpool, and brought to the New York port.

  Assuming we can take these and all the notinherited synth (Brooklyn Bridge, Statue of Liberty etc) out, I don't see much here other than the fact that he was a ship's pilot who piloted big boats into and out of the NY harbour. A few of the claims, for example that he owned several pilot boats shortly after getting his license, seem very dubious.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Henderson served as Maritime pilot for the Sandy Hook Pilot Association for 45 years. His notability comes from primary and secondary sources, which should be sufficient for WP:GNG and WP:BASIC guidelines. Secondary sources include: Charles Edward Russell, who wrote about Joseph Henderson when he worked for the Federal Government during the Civil War. He was also involved in an important U.S. Supreme Court cases - THE MARTELLO v. THE WILLEY, 153 U.S. 64 (1894). He was notable for being the oldest and wealthiest of New York Pilots. He was selected to tow the French steamship which transported the statue of Liberty. --Greg Henderson (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greghenderson2006 once again fails to disclose their COI, per WP:COI "If you become involved in an article where you have any COI, you should always let other editors know about it, whenever and wherever you discuss the topic."ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep According to the delete votes he is just another harbor pilot, and we can't have an article for every harbor pilot. But is he just another harbor pilot as claimed? The way to tell is comparison with his peers. The essence of notability is someone who is set apart from his peers. There is no Pulitzer Prize or Nobel for harbor captains, so we have to look at what we know:

• The Federal government gave him an "unusual reward" for his work during the Civil War. It was "unusual" presumably because other harbor pilots did not receive it.
• He was chosen by the Brooklyn Bridge commission to investigate the viability to pass harbor traffic. Given the BB history, this would have been a significant honor, it demonstrates he was considered an out of the ordinary harbor captain - they chose him and not others for this honor. The Bridge was the biggest thing in the world (or at least America) for a time, such a position would have been competitive and not given out lightly by the commission. I know about the history of the BB how they operated, everything they did was under the microscope of the public and press.
• He was involved in many accidents that were written about in the press, apparently the most of any harbor pilot, another thing setting him apart.

AFAIK we have 1 article about a 19th century harbor pilot from anywhere in the world - potentially soon zero. There appears to be no Wikipedia understanding of what makes a notable harbor captain. I am sympathetic to COI concerns, but there is a feeling COI is being overweighted for reasons beyond what is best in this case. -- GreenC 22:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The unusual reward is an exceptional claim and therefore should be supported by exceptional sources, it would appear to be sourced to Russel's book and I can find no supporting evidence in any other source. It would also be unusual for a state not to pay people who did work for it. The Brooklyn Bridge claim is partially unsourced and relates to appearing as an expert witness before a sub committee (not the commission) probably on behalf of those opposed to the bridge construction, how notable is that? Most committees hear hundreds of peoples opinions. Finally given the period he worked in there is nothing notable about being involved (peripherally) in many nautical incidents. Lyndaship (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Brooklyn Eagle and NY Post obits alone establish notability. Interesting sourced article about interesting person no more obscure than thousands of other bios on WP. The article could definitely use some work, but I don't see how deleting could benefit anyone. Station1 (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP GreenC makes some convincing arguments. Dream Focus 11:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Multiple WP:RS. Exceeds WP:GNG. WP:Not paper WP:Preserve. And there is an obvious and obdurate refusal to read the sources and the article and references, so that WP:Before is being flaunted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obvious vanity project. No judgement really displayed as to why it should be here. Example:

  Pilot Henderson, not speaking French, was somewhat embarrassed when the officers, who did not speak English, took off their caps to him, and he looked wistfully back to the Atlantic, but Capt. De Saune slapped him on the back, and then the old pilot went aft to find a sailor who could speak French.

  This is one of those cases, where the guidelines demand, that articles be educational is largely ignored, in favour of notability proven by sources that impress us; when clearly he is peripheral at best. This is a puffed up piece. There are many lives more interesting than this without the sources that impress us, it is not encyclopedic by any measure. This piece is not educational, in that it adds nothing to the actual articles referred to, be they ships, people, things or places. I almost fell asleep reading it. Good example of how imperfect the projects's policies can be, if we ignore the the prime directive of notability which is educational value. Even the newspaper's obit was a filler, a bread and butter piece from a parochial paper. I suppose that there are many lives included here of similar import of people known nationally or even at big city level, justifying a statue, but this man is at village level really. Broichmore (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Below are reasons he is notable for WP:BASIC:

• One of the original members of the New York and Sandy Hook pilots’ association (45 years)
• One of the best known of the Sandy Hook pilots
• Guided the Baltimore outside Sandy Hook with the body of the Inventor John Ericsson to Sweden
• Worked for the Federal Government during the Civil War with the southern blockade
• Owned the 1/3 pilot boat William Bell, No. 24, which was sunk and burned by the CSS Tallahassee
• At different times owned 6 of the Sandy Hook pilot boats
• Determined the height and span of the Brooklyn Bridge
• Expressly selected to tow the French steamship which transported the Statue of Liberty

Let's WP:AGF and improve the article to make it more encyclopedic. --Greg Henderson (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Very thin. Your stretching WP:BASIC to its very limits and beyond. This article does not comply with WP:AIM and WP:PURPOSE.

See paragraph Any biography in WP:BASIC points 1 to 3.

• 1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. Answer: No.
• 2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field. Answer: debatable. Snippets of trivia from some newspapers.
• 3. The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication. Answer: No.

This article is a C.V. with anecdotes. Even the articles's summary gives the game away Captain Joseph Henderson ... was a 19th century American harbor pilot who guided large vessels into and out of New York Harbor as a Sandy Hook pilot.. Yes, thats it in a nutshell: so what! The leading paragraph itself fails to explain the subject's notability.

Are people here seriously saying this man is "worthy of notice" or "note" — that (he) is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" here in a so called repository of knowledge? Yes, they are. Astounding.

This is an Encyclopedia, it's not Find a grave or a repository for vanity monuments on the web written by relatives, or somesuch. -Broichmore (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is a great article and it is the reason we are building this encyclopedia. We follow the RS, and the RS shows that the subject is notable. Lightburst (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are heaps of sources for someone from the 1800s, front page billing is significant and to my knowledge there have been significant changes in the format of newspapers since this time which explains why the articles are shorter. This makes it difficult to make an argument against notability regardless of COI, I find the arguments by GreenC compelling. PainProf (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources.Djflem (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2020 (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.