Talk:Les Henderson

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 October 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This page was created by Les Henderson (SooperJoo) to promote his book and his website. Les Henderson is not recognized by any credible source as an authority on Fraud.

This page should be deleted as Les Henderson is not a notable figure —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.112.133.254 (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for putting this article to the Defrawy-drone test 75.112.133.254 talk. You miserably failed, which was of course foreseen. But never mind, the "doctor" will be proud of your libellous smear copy&paste abilities, what this is all about. --SooperJoo 19:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ayman Ahmed el-Difrawi

I removed the link to the userfied article on el-Difrawi. After going through the AfD process, the consensus was to delete the article, and it was userfied. Since the article was deleted, it is inappropriate to include a link to it in another article. I am an employee of el-Difrawi and am certain to be attacked (as has happened in the past), so let me point out now that removing the link is the ONLY change I made -- I did not delete the reference to el-Difrawi's fraud conviction. DylanKate 14:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Your master must be pleased with your blind faith, dear Dylankate. You can have your way, no link to Ayman El-Difrawi, even though the article was deleted due to non-notability only, not for being untrue. Permit me to give you some links in return about notability, and more.

Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development

San Antonio Police Department

Saginaw Charter Township Police

Montgomery County Department of Police

Coldspring Police Alert

City of Alhambra Police Department

Greensburg Police Department

The Financial Crimes Task Force of Southwestern Pennsylvania (under United States Postal Inspection Service)

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Suffolk County District Attorney

State of North Carolina Division of Aging and Adult Services

Nova Scotia Securities Commission

The Royal Netherlands Embassy - Washington DC

Chambersburg District Libraries - Law

FSU College of Criminology and Criminal Justice

Australian Institute of Criminology

University of Denver

Chattanooga State Technical Community College

TU Berlin, Germany

Murdoch University, Australia

The Economist

Canadian Broadcasting Company CBC

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Better Business Bureau Alexandria

Findlaw Crime Prevention Resources

--SooperJoo 17:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Les Henderson is using this site to promote a couple of books he has self published and a website he runs.

The website is not ranked in top 100,000 by alexia and gets virtually no traffic. It is jumbled and impossible to navigate (not in any way professionally done). It is basically a front for Google adwords and selling his books.

The books are rambling with no publisher. (They are basically pamphlets he sells on Amazon and other sites that allow individuals to list books. No reputable book store carries either of his “books”

This site is designed to promote himself as a crime fighter and promote his site and book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.30.137 (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

70.121.30.137, I believe that you are Ayman El-Defrawi, and that you are the subject of legal action from the subject. For that reason, you edits will be intrinsically biased. Shritwod 12:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe too that 70.121.30.137 is Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi or somone worlking for him. This IP address was used almost immediately after banning El-Difrawi's previous IP address. The only activity by theis IP address includes blanking the user page on Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi and vandalizing this entry. I have warned this user and will warn him or her again.--SaltyDawg 13:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability Tag

Tagging this article for lack of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Specifically, the subject does not meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

The self-publication of a book does not meet notability guidelines. Unless notability can be established, article will be nominated for deletion.

In addition, the majority of the references listed in the article violate Wikipedia standards, or lack proper citations.

References 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 17, violates WP:V

References 6, 13, 15 are broken.

References 12, 18, 19 do not support the claims in the article.

Unless proper references can be cited, then these porttions of the article will be omitted.Munchkin77 (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Says the person who created their account today. The zero day self-appointed Wikipedia police strike again. What exactly is your problem with Mr Henderson? Did he get under your skin? Publish something you didn't like? Perhaps you should reveal your interest in Mr Henderson? Munchkin78 (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This is about the article, not the editor. The objections to the page's notability and its research stand. Please address the citations that violates WP:V, broken references, and unsupported claims. Printing a Web site, self-publishing books, and being sued for it does not meet the Wikipedia's notability rubric. Take this time to find better sources, and prove notability. Munchkin77 (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

WeatherFug - please do not revert edits without addressing concerns about article's content. Obviously not vandalism. Please either try to improve the article by establishing notability and providing third party links. Munchkin77 (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I gave that a shot and changed some POV language. Your raising the notability question again I consider pure vandalism, it was already answered in october 2007. --WeatherFug (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And looking at the discussion it centered around the editor and not the claim itself. What is notable about this individual? There are claims that he's a well-known expert on fraud, but is not listed anywhere in the article as being such from a verifiable source. There are only three newspaper articles that mention him, but all are in relation to his self-published book. As previously quoted from WP:BLP, a person is not notable for simply being mentioned in a newspaper - especially for being mentioned for publishing a book himself. The sites mentioned above also do not establish notability - Web sites are not verifiable sources. Before dismissing this tag as vandalism, address these concerns.

Furthermore, none of the references on the page prove any of the points made. They are outdated, not verified or constitute original research.

The first proves that the subject publishes a Web site, which is not notable enough for the subject having his own Wikipedia article, and constitutes original research.

The second link is to the amazon page where the subject's self-published book is sold on Amazon. That does not constitute editorial oversight for the book as Amazon is merely a retailer and not an editor, which renders the book as an un-verifiable source, and again is original research.

The third citation is merely a brief mention in the New York Post about the subject being sued. Being sued does not establish notability.

The fourth citation is about the book's publication, again which does not establish notability.

Citation five is to support the assertion that "Both Henderson's site and first book are acknowledged to be valuable and reliable sources of information and the site is linked to by a large number of renown other sites." The link is to an Alexa page that does not prove that the subject is acknowledged to be anyone of importance, and only supports the second claim that the site is linked to from many sites - a fact that constitutes original research, and multiple links to a cite does not constitute notability.

The entire section Les_Henderson#Legal_harassment_and_other_nuisances has no bearing on the article to establish notability. Again, being sued does not make a person notable. Some of the language was cleaned up to provide more of a WP:NPOV, but it does not establish notability. If this article is to be saved from nomination for deletion, it needs to have its notability established, with verifiable third party sources for all of its claims.Munchkin77 (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

Okay, so here are my thoughts. I'll start by saying that I believe that Henderson's notability has been established, if only because he's been mentioned by a number of secondary sources.

First, the Legal harassment and other nuisances section is way, way too long. It looks like it was written by a WP:TENDentious author who has an axe to grind. The text in there adds entirely too much weight to the topic at hand. The section needs to be severely chopped down.

Second, the entire article needs a huge rewrite, on the grounds that it contains so much point of view, original research and synthesis. For example, the sentence: "Both Henderson's site and first book are acknowledged to be valuable and reliable sources of information and the site is linked to by a large number of renown other sites (a.o. governmental, municipal, law enforcement, corporate, consumer rights, educational and private)." The only link given to this is to Alexa, which certainly does not back up the claims there. And even if it did, it wouldn't be acceptable here because it would require more sources to back up such claims.

Until these issues are dealt with, the tags should stay. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I have dealt with the issues adequately. --WeatherFug (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't remove the tags until it has been confirmed that the issues have been dealt with. I have to run out now, but I'll give this page a look within the next day to confirm that. Once I feel the issues have been dealt with, I will remove the tags. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

BLP

I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Scott, I reverted your edits to last stable version by admin HelloAnnyong. I think you're being a bit drastic. Could you please provide detailed specifications about all your concerns, so I can address them one by one? Thank you. --WeatherFug (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)