Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander D. Henderson (businessman)

Alexander D. Henderson (businessman)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for 3 years for notability, this reads like a family history project, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 08:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 08:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, Henderson was the founding investor of the California Perfume Company (CPC), which later became Avon Products. He won a case Henderson v. Bartlett, with the Supreme Court. Some of the many secondary sources include: Publication of the Oswego County Historical Society, Suffern, The New York Supplement, and The Story of Perfumery and the CPC. Greg Henderson (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Theroadislong, it is a family history project; several editors are aware of the Henderson family walled garden (one of several walled gardens created by the editor above.) I'm not commenting on the AfD at this time, however it should be disclosed that the above editor, the article creator, has a strong COI. @Greghenderson2006 isn't this your grandfather, or uncle or another one of your relatives? How many family-related articles on people, their businesses, associates, houses, etc. have you created thus far on your family and/or your wife's family? Netherzone (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncomfortable with this continuous outting of Greg ("isn't this your <family member>") plus it has the appearance of punishment. See User:GreenC/The Instinct to Punish which explains this powerful instinct we have to punish people, and how it can become obsessive. Your better off sticking to the merits of the content and not who wrote it, back off from Greg. Finally, it's not clear this is a family WP:Walled garden as there are links to a notable reality outside the family, like an early partner in Avon. -- GreenC 06:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenC, with all due respect for your good work here, it is considered best practices for COI editors disclose their COI, per WP guidelines: you should always let other editors know about it, whenever and wherever you discuss the topic.. Re: “outing”, Greg chose to out himself years ago when he used his own family genealogy website extensively as a source on numerous articles, and also published his family tree on scores of categories on Commons. I’d also like to clarify that I am neither a punishment-oriented person nor do I have some sort of “obsessive” disorder, which, quite frankly, sounds like an attack on my character and/or mental health. Please don't do that again. Re: the walled garden, over the years numerous other editors have noticed this. I’ll strike my question as to the number of family articles, as that information can be found in contributions and talk pages. I would appreciate it if you strike your veiled PA. Netherzone (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank you for your appreciation of my work on Wikipedia, you do good work as well. I hope you understand the difficult spot it places Gregg to be interrogated during a consensus discussion over the specific details of his COI which could reveal his precise identity. Maybe he already did reveal his precise identity elsewhere, voluntarily, I don't know, but he is not required to do so here or anywhere, we should not put him in that position, and, it can be intimidating during a consensus discussion he may feel pressured. You are correct, he should have said he had a COI, but that's all that needed to be said by anyone.

In terms of the essay User:GreenC/The Instinct to Punish this is not a personal attack like any other essay it is only something to consider. The essay doesn't concern "disorders", just the opposite, it's a normal trait in all humans. I can't really say your motivations are based in the desire for punishing the transgressions of a COI editor, I honestly don't know, and anyway, as the essay says, punishment is actually a requirement for group cooperation, it's a healthy normal thing in moderation. Another term for it might be group moderation, but then, we have also seen group moderation turn into hellish disruptions (see ANI at times) there are pitfalls we need to remain cognitive of. That is all.

The WP:walled garden essay. You know that old saying, if everyone jumped off a bridge would you also? If multiple people are making that accusation that doesn't mean it's right. I'm challenging the walled garden assertion. I would encourage reading the essay if not already. The argument for a walled garden doesn't hold up not even close, by the definition of that essay. Possibly there are other definitions, including unstated ones. -- GreenC 02:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:GreenC - I like your essay on the urge to punish, and I think it is a real issue at WP as in every human community, and something to guard against, especially when dealing with someone who seems like they're serially violating WP policy.

However, I don't think "outing" is the right frame for this situation, in a case where a user's handle and user page are clear about their identity, and most of their editing is on the pages of their ancestors, as documented in the Henderson family tree they themselves have linked to. This is self-acknowledged family history - it should not be taboo to point that out. Llajwa (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference here is they are being pressured during a consensus discussion to reveal information that is not known and maybe Gregg doesn't want to reveal that information but if he doesn't answer he looks uncooperative. It's not appropriate to interrogate people or speculate about personal information, particularly during a consensus discussion. -- GreenC 14:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has been around since March 5, 2007‎. Why all the fuss now? Why would anyone want to remove an important biographical history? Greg Henderson (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject of this article fails WP notability criteria per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The article is ref-bombed with small fragmentary bits of trivial coverage. See Source Assessment Table - click on "show" on the right for more information and detail on the sourcing.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://digital.hagley.org/islandora/object/islandora:2225626#page/1/mode/2up	Written and self-published by his own company	Non neutral POV, written by the subject	Lengthy statement about the company signed Cordially yours, Alexander D. Henderson (written by the subject)	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-brooklyn-daily-eagle-angelina-obit/70749696/	Obituary of his mother	In a newspaper with a byline	Name check mention of him	✘ No
https://bklyn.newspapers.com/image/50461130/?terms=Henderson-Brown	Marriage announcement, usually submitted by the family	published newspaper	One sentence - name check mention	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-brooklyn-daily-eagle-in-paris/70739916/	published newspaper	newspaper	name-check mention only	✘ No
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Suffern/eCBKlORV4sgC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22Alexander+Dawson+Henderson%22&pg=PA80&printsec=frontcover	published book on Suffern, NY	A photo caption and photo of his house in Suffern	Three sentences about his house and his job title	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20080907062509/http://eagle.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/	? 404 - unverifiable, page does not load	? unknown, unverifiable	Probably not, as it seems to be the same as the next citation, which verdict of a lawsuit this mother was involved in	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20080907062509/http://eagle.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/	newspaper	Think this is a duplicate of the above citation (same date, same newspaper)	Lawsuit by his mother; he acted on her behalf re: a stock deal	✘ No
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Reports_of_Cases_Heard_and_Determined_in/G3ALAAAAYAAJ?hl=en	Court case report	court report	This is about the court case of his mother's involving his stock deal, does not contribute to notability	✘ No
https://www.hagley.org/research/digital-exhibits/avon-historical-archive-hagley-library	His company's logo and a couple press photos pubished in the company's "Avon Outlook Digest"	? self-published	company press photos	✘ No
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Trow_formerly_Wilson_s_Copartnership/7cYpAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Alexander+D.+Henderson&pg=PA26&printsec=frontcover	directory listing		A directory listing; name-check mention only	✘ No
https://digital.hagley.org/islandora/object/islandora:2226135#page/1/mode/2up	Bill of Sale for his company	?	Bill of Sale legal agreement	✘ No
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Drug_and_Chemical_Markets/qoohAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0	? Business listing for Drug & Chemical Markets	directory	directory listing	✘ No
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_American_Perfumer_and_Essential_Oil/fvY1AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0	? Trade Journal published by the Robbins Perfume Company	? trade journal listing	Name check mention only	✘ No
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Operation_Maintenance/Y1IgAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Henderson	Trade Journal	trade journal listing	name check mention only	✘ No
https://digital.hagley.org/islandora/object/islandora:2244354	image of an award certificate	Expo Award Certificate for his company	Does not seem to mention his name, only his company	✘ No
https://search.worldcat.org/title/55166512	? Seems to be a self-published document of "Mary's Family Connections"	self-published, no publisher listed on WorldCat	unreliable source	✘ No
Suffern Independent Sold to Corporation	? probably, since it seems to be a newspaper	? unverifiable	? no url link available, unverifiable source	? Unknown
https://www.newspapers.com/image/59866540/?article=3814624c-684f-4645-8aa2-2b5bb083ff36	Funeral announcement, probably placed by a family member	newspaper	One sentence funeral announcement of date and place of memorial service	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-brooklyn-daily-eagle-obituary-for-al/70743913/	duplicate of funeral announcement	newspaper	His name, his wife's name and date and time of funeral service	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Avon Products; a merge is not necessary as there is already info about him in that article.Netherzone (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Netherzone's reference analysis. That an article has been around for a long time is not a valid rationale to keep. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the article has a notable person in the founding of Avon and it has been created and reviewed since March 5, 2007‎, is a strong indicator that the article should (a) be kept as a historical reference to a founding member and to the history of Avon; (b) sources show his prominence in the business community and with the development of an international company, something akin to a startup today. (c) deleting this article just makes no sense. At the very least move it into draft space to allow time to enhance it. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think notability standards will be met, so I don't think that draftifying makes sense. Also how long an article has been around is a terrible indicator, particularly because of loose the notability standards used to be and because there also used to be far less oversight when it came to new articles. Having joined a company a couple of years after it was founded does not meet any notability criteria, most people who part of a notable corporation in its early stages are not notable and the lack of significant, reliable coverage for the subject reflects that. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. As background, Avon Products is one of the more important companies in American corporate history. It was one if not the first company to nationally sell cosmetics, at a time when cosmetics were considered somewhat scandalous to middle-class women. It pioneered direct sales markets ("Ding Dong! Avon Calling!" - this phrase might predate some readers, but would have been well know to everyone 50 years ago). Being such a notable company, it's early history is important. Multiple reliable sources confirm Henderson played a key role in its foundation. Those sources follow - not all currently in the article:

Bender, Marylin (1975). At The Top. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. p. 34. ISBN 9780385010047.. This is an expanded version of an article journalist Marylin Bender originally published in the Times: Bender, Marylin (November 28, 1971). "Avon: Chiming True?". The New York Times.
Manko, Katina (2021). Ding Dong! Avon Calling! The Women and Men of Avon Products. Oxford University Press. p. 258. ISBN 9780190499822.

GNG's "significant coverage" does not require a volume of words. It can also mean the quality of the words ie. coverage which demonstrates notability. It can be a single sentence in length: "First man on the moon" is five words of significance towards notability. For the record, this issue has been debated forever at the notability guideline page. A number of the sources discounted by Netherzonev for length overlook what the words are saying. Sources are a combination of style (length) and substance (information) eg. it could be low information and long length, or short length and high information. Thus it's impossible to place length requirements on sources, which is why GNG has no length requirement such as 1 paragraph. -- GreenC 21:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GreenC, respectfully, no one here is disputing that Avon Products is a notable company. (BTW, I too remember Ding Dong Avon Calling) Regarding the three sources you list, the Marylin Bender book has one sentence about him: Alexander Henderson, the chemist who produced the perfume vials for David McConnell, invested a modest sum to get the venture going. That sentence is later paraphrased/duplicated by the same author (in the NYT) stating Except at the outset when Alexander Henderson invested a modest sum to get Founder McConnell started. Are either the book or the NYT article about Henderson?....no they are not. Does this sentence compare to the sentence "First man on the moon"? No. And to propose they do is like comparing apples to the Apollo 11, or like comparing Alexander D. Henderson to Buzz Aldrin. I'm not seeing a link to the third source you brought, but would like to read what it says if you have a moment to post that here. Netherzone (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Apollo example is to make the point about "significant coverage" more clear, not to directly compare the notability of Henderson with that of Buzz Aldrin! (FWIW, Buzz was the second person on the Moon.) I did say the two Bender sources are similar, why they are under the same bullet point. The article first appeared in the NYT, and later in revised form in the book, with expanded information. There is no requirement that a source be "about" the topic, that is a common misnomer not supported by any policy or guideline. -- GreenC 01:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(FWIW, Buzz was the second person on the Moon.) Egzaktly! And Henderson was not the founder of Avon. He's been described as a chemist and a modest donor in these sources. Forgive my obtuse metaphor. Netherzone (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is evidently more than 1 person notable in the early history of Avon, according to the sources. The modest sum is all it took. Many big companies start that way. It takes someone willing to take the risk when no one else will. -- GreenC 02:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if so (which I'd say would be debatable given he was not part of the company until 8 years after the founding date), being notable in a company's early years doesn't equate to being notable in terms of Wikipedia's notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a deeper look at the article talk page. Questions about his notability actually go back 12 years, to 2012. Netherzone (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, a source doesn't have to be specifically about a subject but the coverage on a subject still needs to be in-depth. Mentions of Henderson appear to be rather short and passing. Possibly a more apt example than Apollo 11 in Wiki-terms is how due to the popularity of the Band of Brothers (miniseries) and the book many members of E Company, 506th Infantry Regimen based on similar(and likely more commonly spread) book mentions (both BoB and following related books afterwards) and primary/secondary (see the old navbox) and were later deleted because the subjects weren't actually notable. This included many initial members of the organization and even included some of its leaders. Unless an inclusionary criteria is met, you still need to be covered in-depth. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GNG doesn't say that. Indeed it says "sources vary in quality and depth of coverage". As I said before, sources are combination of quantity and quality. There is no requirement for quantity. -- GreenC 19:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except there needs to be at least some in-depth sourcing that "addresses the topic directly and in detail", which a sentence here or two in a source does not. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the sources address the topic directly by name, and provide detail about the person's important role in the early history of the company. -- GreenC 19:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are quick mentions, which is not notability lending. There is no expounding on how instrumental or important his contributions were, how the "revolutionized" the industry, etc. It is a sentence or two that he was an executive within 10 years of the company's founding and made a modest investment and there isn't anything more. Again playing a role in the early stages of an organization doesn't grant notability. Being part of the early team does not merit an article alone. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Mentions" that confirm he played an important part in the early history of a major company. You don't have to agree but I don't want to keep repeating myself why I think he is notable. -- GreenC 21:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think notability has been proven that he was in fact a major founder of a major company. There are plenty of citations. Bearian (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional comments on the quality and comprehensiveness of the available source material would be very helpful. "Is a..." are, well, not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Based on the source analysis table, there just isn't enough to keep it. I can't find anything in Gbooks, Scholar or Jstor. Could merge a line or two into the Avon article, but I'm not seeing enough sourcing to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried these from Google Books?
Greg Henderson (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As above, these are trivial mentions cobbled together.

1. is a photo and a photo-caption of his house. Not SIGCOV.

2. is a paid advertisement in the back of "The Order of Railroad Station Agents" newsletter. Not SIGCOV

3. shows the company had a certificate issued to it. Not SIGCOV

4. is a trade journal with a photo of him as secretary. Not SIGCOV

5. is about his Mother's lawsuit. Not SIGCOV

6. is a directory listing. Not SIGCOV

7. is a court document about his Mother's lawsuit. Not SIGCOV

8. shows he participated in his church. Not SIGCOV Netherzone (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage does not require a volume of words. "In 1906, Henderson built a home in Suffern, New York, after having visited there as summer visitors several times. That house burnt down in 1941." It goes on to say "Henderson started as a bookeeper in New York City with the California Perfume Company (now Avon Products, Inc.), working his way up to vice president and treasurer." This is coming from a secondary source that is reliable and independent of the subject WP:BASIC. Certainly, this meets the basic coverage guideline. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update - Please review edit requests on Henderson's talk page. There are a lot of updates that show WP:N via primary and secondary sources, e.g. a New York Times article, and two books Ding Dong! Avon Calling! and At The Top. Greg Henderson (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As previously discussed, the New York Times includes one-half a sentence about him, Except at the outset when Alexander Henderson invested a modest sum to get Founder McConnell started.... The "At the Top" source contains one sentence (by the same author) which states Alexander Henderson, the chemist who produced the perfume vials for David McConnel, invested a modest sum to get the venture going. It duplicates the same content, with slightly different wording. And "Ding! Dong!" page 258 mentions that his son took over from this Henderson (I'm seeing a snippet-view.) None of this is significant coverage; the latter two are books but each only seems to contain one sentence on Henderson. Netherzone (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article seems to be almost entirely WP:OR - I'm confused why there is controversy? The references are primarily to newspapers, periodicals and official documents contemporary to the subject's life. For a self-published family history, that is in fact best practice. But an encyclopedia is based on secondary sources which have summarized and digested such primary-source documents; it is attention from these secondary sources that establishes a historical subject's notability. Such secondary sources don't seem to exist for this person. Llajwa (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, what? PRIMARY source does not mean "newspapers, periodicals and official documents contemporary to the subject's life". Please read WP:PRIMARY and also see primary source. -- GreenC 01:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources include:
- Long, Craig H. (2011). Suffern. Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 9780738573519
- Twenty-Third Publication of the Oswego County Historical Societyn. Oswego, New York: Oswego County Historical Society. 1960. p. 20.
- Bender, Marlin (1975). At The Top. Doubleday. p. 34. ISBN 9780385010047
- Manko, Katina (2021). Ding Dong! Avon Calling! The Women and Men of Avon Products. Oxford University Press. p. 258. ISBN 9780190499822
Greg Henderson (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. GreenC 14:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The recent edits to the article and sources added to this discussion look like a WP:REFBOMB campaign that is difficult for some to wade through. Is anyone willing to make a WP:THREE offer to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV? From what I've inspected in the sources so far, I'm leaning to vote delete, but willing to reconsider. Left guide (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone added a new paragraph, with a single citation at the end of each sentence, for verification purposes. Had they not done so, the content would have been immediately deleted as unsourced, because the article is currently embattled by some COIN readers deleting things from this articles and others written by Gregg with unusually strict interpretations, or indeed no rationale at all in some cases. The number of sources in this article is not that high out of the ordinary. The WP:THREE essay is commonly used to create a strawman that can then be torn down, rather than addressing the overall reason why the topic is notable, a forest for the trees fallacy. The reason the topic is notable is given in the lead section, and that is supported by the text and sources in the article. It's not that difficult to understand the article speaks for itself. -- GreenC 18:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green, Please knock it off with the bad-faith generalizations and stereotypes. Alexander D. Henderson is not independently notable, his notability is entirely hinged on his association with Avon; the article is pieced together from bits of trivial mentions or by primary sources. Also see WP:CANVAS. Netherzone (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has secondary reliable sources specifically about the reason he is notable, helping in the creation of one of the most important cosmetic companies. Your arguments look like this:
"He is only notable due to his association with Avon". Well, yeah. That's how notability works. He actually did something though, he helped create the company, that's why he is notable.

"The sources are passing mentions" - not really, they speak directly to the reason he is notable: helping to create the company. Word count is not relevant. If he was on a list of international terrorists, name only, that too would be notable. It's the quality of the information, not the quantity.

"It's all primary sources" - no, it's not. There are multiple books which are not primary, and are independent of the subject. Some primary is acceptable.

"It's all trivia" - I can't reply to that because if you don't think he is notable, yeah it might look like trivia. But it's subjective.

-- GreenC 05:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can anyone see the New York Times report about him? https://www.nytimes.com/1964/07/10/archives/alexander-d-henderson-avon-products-director.html Also how much coverage did newspapers give to his death? He died back in 1925 so not as easy to search for as it normally would be. A successful businessman, do they have him in textbooks for business schools? Dream Focus 22:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is about his son:
Alexander D. Henderson [Jr.,] Avon Products Director

Alexander D. Henderson of Hillsboro Beach, Fla., a director and former vice president of Avon Products, Inc., cosmetics company, died Wednesday in New England Deaconess Hospital in Boston. He was 69 years old.
Mr. Henderson, a native of Brooklyn, spent most of his early life in Suffern, N. Y. He had lived in Hillsboro Beach since 1951 and had been Mayor there for the last six years.
- The other NY Times article says:
Avon's notably stable though aggressive manage ment style has been abetted by extraordinarily sound fi nances. Except at the outset when Alexander Henderson [Sr.] invested a modest sum to get Founder McConnell started (his son, Girard Henderson, an Avon multimillionaire, is still on the board) Avon ap pears never to have been starved for capital. Its last loan, $6‐million at 3⅜per cent interest was paid off in 1966. Next year's more than $30‐million in capital expend itures—some for moving headquarters to a new sky scraper on 57th Street—will be internally financed. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that looks like a textbook example of a passing mention for Alexander D. Henderson (businessman) with in-depth coverage about Avon. Left guide (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GNG doesn't say that. Indeed it says "sources vary in quality and depth of coverage". Sources are combination of quantity and quality. There is no requirement for quantity. It's not a passing mention when it confirms he played a significant role in the establishment of such a notable corporation. You don't need to agree he is notable, but don't misrepresent what the rules say, either, the cited source is fine and acceptable for concluding he is notable. -- GreenC 04:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{re|Dream Focus}}, it's a short form obit. You can see if Archive.is already has it. If not, you can process an archive. Sometimes, this will let you see contents behind a wall. Graywalls (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]