Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gordon Smith Henderson (2nd nomination)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Editors can work on improving this article and its sourcing. Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Gordon Smith Henderson
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Recreated biography of a lawyer and politician. Although this is written and sourced differently enough to not be eligible for speedy deletion as a recreation of previously deleted content, it still isn't showing improved evidence of satisfying notability criteria. This does include more content about his legal career than the first time, but still stakes his notability as a lawyer primarily on (a) purely local crime coverage in his hometown that briefly glances off his existence as a lawyer in the process of being principally about the criminals, and (b) purely local run of the mill human interest coverage of the type that any reasonably prominent local figure would merely be expected to receive in his local media (e.g. marriage announcements and death notices), with absolutely nothing that suggests a credible reason why he would be a special case of uniquely greater notability than other lawyers. Meanwhile, the attempted notability as a politician is still staked on non-winning candidacies that do not satisfy WP:NPOL -- the only new thing that's been added is one piece of speculation about a cabinet appointment that didn't materialize, but "was briefly speculated as a possible appointment to a position he wasn't actually appointed to" is not a notability boost either. Otherwise, the remaining sources are tangentially verifying stray facts about his father and his son, which don't help to build Gordon's notability at all — notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so he isn't automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because his father and son have Wikipedia articles, but there still just isn't anything here which counts as strong evidence that he's earned permanent inclusion in an international encyclopedia in his own right. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law,  and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. KC who was so prominent that he was a leading candidate for Attorney General of Ontario. I think he's probably notable enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * KC would be fine if the article were sourced properly, but is in no way "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to have better sourcing than this, and "was speculated as a potential candidate for appointment to an office he wasn't actually appointed to" is no part of any Wikipedia notability criterion at all (especially when that speculation is coming from the local newspaper in his hometown and not from anybody with any real "insider" knowledge). Bearcat (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Appointed King's Counsel which in that time was a big honor. As a lawyer multiple sources said he was involved in every important criminal case of the time and there are hundreds of news articles from reputable newspapers about him.  As a politician he was prominent on the political scene and was a community leader in the liberal party despite not holding office. -- PD8 (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What sources in the article represent "important" criminal cases, exactly? Bearcat (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In Men of Today and Tomorrow, it says, "He has been engaged during the last five years in all the important criminal cases here." In Two Local Barristers  Appointed King's Counsel By Ontario Govt. it says, "Dr. Gordon Henderson for many years has been very prominent as a criminal lawyer and has had many notable cases." PD8 (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And which sources establish the individual "importance" or "notability" of any specific criminal case? It's not enough that one source asserts that his cases were important, if we can't find sufficient sourcing to validate the notability of any specific case — which case was he ever involved in that was significant or important or prominent enough that we could justifiably create and keep a Wikipedia article about the case and/or the defendant who was on trial? Bearcat (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * He was senior counsel for Louis Auger, accused of rape. The court case was national news, with books being written about it: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.3138/9781442689510-003/html.  As you asked, the defendant does have a Wikipedia article, and it is well-sourced that Gordon Henderson was his lawyer. PD8 (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Arbitrarily0   ( talk ) 03:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep perPD8 18:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Bookworm857158367 (talk)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep: Gnewspapers in Canada shows many articles when he died, expanding upon his career and importance to the community He was covered in Ottawa, Toronto and in French-language sources in Quebec.  Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: clearly the multiple obituaries make him notable. --hroest 21:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.