Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Henderson (writer)

{{#ifeq:Robert Henderson (writer)|Robert Henderson (writer)||

:{{la|Robert Henderson (writer)}} – (View AfD)(View log)

Totally unsourced, and I can't see how this individual is notable. Minor notoriety on a newsgroup doesn't make the individual encyclopaedic. Js farrar 18:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Robert+Henderson%22+%22liberal+bigot%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&start=80&sa=N Posts to a lot of blogs], but [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&tab=wn&hl=en&q=%22Robert+Henderson%22+%22liberal+bigot%22+-wikipedia&ie=UTF-8 the media seem uninterested]. Fails the notability guidelines, as not covered in multiple, independent reliable sources. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep The "Is It In The Blood?" essay in Wisden Cricket Monthly really was a big deal at the time and even made news outside the UK. The article does need sourcing however and could be pruned rather dramatically removing unsourced claims about political and racial views under WP:BLP. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 21:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• It seems some of Henderson's views on race can be seen in the source provided by Loganberry. Change vote to keep-- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 07:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The essay and subsequent controversy in WCM, the front page story in the Daily Mirror published on 25 March 1997, a similar story in the Daily Record [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmcumeds/458/458w96.htm] and the court case brought by a couple of England cricketers all make him notable outside 'minor notoriety on a newsgroup'. Nick mallory 01:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Agree with Mattingbn including the part that the article made news outside UK. But I suspect that apart from that one paragraph, the rest is not worth being in the article. Tintin 02:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep under the assumption that the sources mentioned will be added to the article. DGG 03:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but the article needs a good deal of editing as well as proper referencing. As far as notability goes, Mike Marqusee devoted a chunk of his book Anyone but England to the affair. (Available on MM's website: [http://www.mikemarqusee.com/index.php?p=69&page=1]) Loganberry (Talk) 03:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, with due reluctance, but needs to be put in the wider context. Johnlp 23:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable for the Wisden controversy alone, even if nothing else. It was very big news in the UK at the time. AdorableRuffian 23:12, 27 May 2007 (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.