Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynette Nusbacher (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 delete. Basically per WP:BIODEL: Nusbacher's notability is borderline at best, the article suffers from BLP issues, the subject has asked for its deletion and there is no overwhelming consensus here that, despite all that, the article should be kept. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lynette Nusbacher

AfDs for this article:
Lynette Nusbacher (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)

opening the AfD discussion on behalf of User:Hinata. Rationale has included "Help me get it nominated for deletion, I don't know how. Article lacks notability other then some tabloid source." I am strictly opening on User:Hinata behalf and have no opinion at this time and will let User:Hinata more fully explain. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG because of coverage in the following sources:


 • William D. Rubinstein; Michael Jolles; Hilary L. Rubinstein, eds. (2011). The Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 727. ISBN 1403939101.
 • Frazer, Jenni (April 5, 2006). "Military maven". Jewish Chronicle. Retrieved January 2, 2013.
 • Herbert, Ian (2011-10-23). "The IoS Pink List 2011". The Independent online. Retrieved 2012-12-31.
 • "The IoS Pink List 2012". The Independent online. 2012-11-04. Retrieved 2012-12-31.
The first two sources show non-trivial coverage of the life and career. The second two sources show recognition by a larger community, akin to a minor but national award. Binksternet (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak delete - mostly per Collect - even the most substantial source, the Palmgrave shows only standard academic publishing, minor TV appearances and mid-level government position, none of which in themselves is particularly significant nor together do they gain any synergy. If the Pink award had stated anything about why she was selected, but all it lists is the above so one is left with the belief that it is because of having a fairly high visibility transgender person - but being transgender is not WP:N either. So being only marginally notable combined with the subjects desire to not be included, delete.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we go by that source alone, then ....delete. The authors have Identified all their sources for the tiny little section on the subject in Palgrave Dictionary as "Online sources". Does a google search really give this source "high quality"? Can historians really be used to source a "gender change"? I do agree that "there is marginally enough reliable third party sources for a weak keep for Aryeh Nusbacher"--Amadscientist (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
unless you want to change the definition of reliable sources, then yes, "online sources" interpreted by experts and determined by them to be worthy and accurate are indeed sufficient sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Gee, I guess that we should re-write the entire Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources as well as all of the BLP policy then to fit your definition. But since we are not doing so I think we should stick the policy at hand. The work itself - a tiny little section in Palgrave Dictionary that uses all online sources is weak. The authors are not experts on gender change or sex change and don't even appear to be biographers and used unkown, unlisted "online sources". No - it isn't sufficient. Its a tertiary source. Per WP:WPNOTRS: "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." This source is used multiple times and for information its authors have no business being cited as experts on with unkown manners of research.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline at NOTRS is not about establishing notability. Instead, it is a warning not to rely on tertiary sources for details. There are no details that we are trying to establish in the biography; for instance, we are not trying to specify exactly what sort of gender change Nusbacher underwent. Note that the Palgrave scholars used six Jewish Chronicle articles and a variety of unlisted "online sources". We are not here arguing whether Palgrave is wrong (which is very doubtful) but whether Nusbacher is notable. The fact that Palgrave felt Nusbacher was worth including in their biographical dictionary is the only point we care about. Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that we're "not trying to specify what sort of gender change" she had belies the fact that we know very well how readers will read it, and they're not going to read it as "we don't know what sort of gender change"--they're going to read it as "she had a sex-change operation". Just the fact that the words can be literally read in some manner other than "sex-change operation" doesn't change this. Heavily implying something we have no good source for is no better than outright stating something we have no good source for. Ken Arromdee (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteRevised opinion below Examine the sources provided:
Palgrave is tertiary, as explained by Amadscientist. No good for proving notability.
Jewish Chronicle mentions Arye, not Lynette. Without RS demonstrating they're the same thing, no good
Pink list mentions include no in-depth coverage of the subject. And an annual award voted for by the readers of one newspaper, the Independent on Sunday, is definitely not sufficient to demonstrate notability. --Dweller (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline at GNG recommends secondary sources instead of primary ones, not instead of tertiary ones. If you examine the historic development of GNG, you'll see that as far back as 2007 it specifically says secondary sources are better than primary ones. There has never been (and likely will never be) a recommendation saying that tertiary sources are not sufficient to establish notability.
Your argument throwing out Palgrave is faulty; even if you think it does not establish notability it continues to connect Aryeh to Lynette Nusbacher, which means the Jewish Chronicle "Military maven" piece remains valid, along with anything else about Aryeh Nusbacher. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you're going with that, but the trouble is the interpretation of "should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion". Is this an overview issue or a detail one? Given the importance of BLP, I can't help but side conservatively. The best solution here is someone presents a nice RS that links the two people and this AfD collapses in a heap. Without it, I can't help but find it sits uneasily with BLP for the notability to entirely depend on a tertiary source, given that we must discount the Jewish Chronicle. --Dweller (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no discounting of the Jewish Chronicle. Where did that come from? Even NetNus, the subject of the biography, accedes that her name was previously Aryeh Nusbacher. Binksternet (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The JC article says nothing at all about Lynette Nusbacher, and unless and until you show me a solid secondary reliable source that Lynette=Aryeh, the JC piece is valueless, no matter how many Wikipedians, blogs, tertiary sources and other sources shout that they're the same person. As I've previously stated, if they are demonstrably the same person, I'd strongly consider switching to keep, and I doubt I'm the only one who would do so. --Dweller (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You said if "someone presents a nice RS that links the two people [then] this AfD collapses in a heap". What alien universe is it wherein three Fellows of the Royal Historical Society are said to be unreliable for facts published in their scholarly reference book? The Palgrave book is the very source you call for. I am astounded at the method by which you came to some other conclusion. Binksternet (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) without a reliable source such as Palmgrave making the connection between the two, we cannot - and a wikipedia users claim is not sufficient evidence either. So far the only potentially reliable source for such a connection is the Palmgrave and if that is (Bizzaroland) not an acceptable source, we just have some potentially significant sourced content to establish notability for the work/impact of Aryeh but certainly not sufficient content about Lynette. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we have any BLP-compliant evidence that this person used to be called Arye, with or without a sex-change, I'd change my opinion to "Keep", per the Jewish Chronicle article alone. Without BLP-compliant evidence, we have nothing to link the two individuals. --Dweller (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And Palgrave does not mention a sex change. In fact I see no source that does. This is exactly why the source and the article should go. This whole thing is leading people to make assumptions without even realising it.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Palgrave book specifically says "gender change", not sex change. However, many editors here confuse the two, seeing them as identical terms. The whole point here is about notability, not about the difference between gender and sex change. The whole point is that the Palgrave people saw fit to include Nusbacher in their compendium of notable people. If we do less than that we are failing the Wikipedia reader. Binksternet (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • IAR delete - This is a sorry spectacle of process over common sense. No one who has seen the preponderance of evidence available can seriously suggest (a) the subject was not previously known as Aryeh and (b) the subject did not previously lived as male. They are not even disputed by the editor who is supposedly the subject in question. And yet, we have spent many KBs on a number of different pages arguing over the reliability of various sources, including one edited by three Fellows of the Royal Historical Society and published by a well-regarded academic publisher. In the name of preventing outing of what isn't actually a secret, we have had various surreal suggestions ranging from having two separate articles on the same subject with one covering pre-2007 and one post-2007, to pretending either explicitly or implicitly that the former name was a nom de plume. In the name of WP:BLP, the article have also over time been sanitised of much content that is referenced and otherwise standard on any of our other 600,000 BLPs. While I do believe the subject does marginally meet our notability guidelines, I'd only consider that to be the case if we consider the subject's life as a whole. If we're going to pretend some part of her life didn't happened, and ended with a crippled article as a result, it would be better to just not have the article at all. Such an outcome is also one the alleged subject is on the record as being happy with, so would satisfy deletion based on WP:BIODEL. KTC (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This needs to either be signed or stricken. Carrite (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! KTC (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let met see if I got you straight: You are essentially saying that because we cannot collectively put together a sensible biography with relevant details about a life and career which includes a gender change in 2007, we should give up and delete the damn thing? I think that is a sad reflection on our capabilities. I think Wikipedia can do better than that. Binksternet (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am usually hawkish on the "If The Subject Squeals, Pay No Heed" question — this is not what should be impacting our Keep and Delete criteria, and probably 90% of the time I'm automatically in the Keep camp when it becomes clear that this is what is driving a deletion nomination. Here, however, we've got a subject whose main notability hook, it seems to me, is that they grew up an orthodox jewish male and had a sex change operation. Whoopty fucking doo. Oh, and by the way, she was and is a military historian. Oooooooooo. As a historian, this individual would probably not clear our notability guidelines, that's the main thing to me. If this is not a case of squeaking past the special notability guidelines for scholars (I don't know and have no view on this), this should end in a GNG Delete. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per subject's preference, as expressed here. That preference offers the following option to the closing admin: AfDs of BLPs for non-public figures "where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete", at WP:BIODEL. Coverage of this person is not widespread to the point where a biography is necessary, and if editors are going to insist on violating her perfectly reasonable expectation of privacy then deletion is an entirely reasonable choice. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • She(or he) is not exactly a public figure because there is no reliable source on any other place. As a matter of fact, there are reasons I wanted this article deleted, one I personally think she is non-notable, two she seems normal aside from her sex change, three we are violating WP:BLP by saying private things that everyone can see, four subject request deletion, and Finally, of all things, there is a TOTAL lack of reliable sources other then some tabloid which shouldn't even be used. --Hinata talk 19:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Extremely marginal notability (commentator on a game show and the Jewish Chronicle write-up is it, the others refs are just name-drops and cites), subject requests deletion, that should be respected. I think whenever possible, we should respect the fact that some people out there would just rather not have a biography hosted on a high-traffic website, controlled by anonymous amateurs. Tarc (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Let me explain, article is about a subject that lacks notability except one source, and all other sources are only mentioning in a one line sentence. How does the subject account for notability needs to be explained. Also, I hardly think anyone comes see this page as well, but I know that has noting to do with the page. --Hinata talk 19:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without prejudice to what the article contains. Editors saying things like "extremely marginal notability" and "lacks notability except for one source". Either have no idea why they are commenting here or cannot be taken in good faith. There are countless sources attesting to the notability of the subject. She's a senior lecturer at one of the world's top military schools, formerly a permanent advisor to the Joint Intelligence Committee and a minor TV personality. Last year, The Independent listed her as the 53rd most influential LGBT person in the UK. We obviously wouldn't delete the article of anyone else on that list and, given the vast number of incredibly minor academics we are happy to house bios for, its absurd to suggest we should delete this one. Formerip (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. She or he is not LGBT anyway, and regardless, she is non-notable. These sources are also Unreliable and the most important thing is to actually PROVE that she even made the sex change. Without this confirmation, the article fails without sources, as most of the sources are her as a male. Oh, but wait... we have to prove that.. so a catch 22. --Hinata talk 20:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since there's only one source, should that be "most of the source is her as a male"? Formerip (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being a senior lecturer or #53 on a famous gay people list are not inherently notable criteria, I'm afraid. You can't just bean-count these tiny scraps of things a person does and declare notability, that is the classic asinine Rescue Squad mentality. Before you slag other editors as having "no idea why they are commenting here", try coming up with less woefully ignorant rebuttals yourself, Mr. FormerIP. Tarc (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it's consistent for someone to be considered 53rd most notable LGBT person in the UK by a major newspaper yet not notable for a Wikipedia article? Formerip (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If they failed to otherwise have received significant coverage in reliable third party sources, yep it is consistent with Wikipedia Notability criteria. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This sidebar exchange is purely academic, since the coverage is there (even if some pretend not to see it). Keep in mind, the subject is a television personality, noted author, and meets notability under WP:PROF, all of which seems to be getting overlooked in the irrational fixation on the Pink List business. ► Belchfire-TALK 20:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to point out what criteria of WP:PROF you think this person meets? A PhD, a master's thesis and 2 obscure books are woefully short of what is claled for by a sub-notability guideline. Tarc (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject is not highly notable. She's written two relatively obscure books, some newspaper columns, has held a relatively obscure teaching post (yes, yes, two princes - I don't think anyone is claiming she shaped their view on life?), and has been a consultant to several shows. Probably enough to meet WP:N, but not overwhelmingly; not by enough that it's worth causing her pain, which it clearly seems to be doing. That's not quite what NetNus is asking for - she's just asking to remove the link - but it's the best we can do. We can't avoid connecting Lynette to Aryeh if we have an article (the best source, the Jewish Chronicle piece, is about Aryeh, and the books have Aryeh on the cover), so the only choice seems to be not to have an article. --GRuban (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find the WP:BIODEL request but if it exists we certainly should consider it; she's of marginal notability. Just because there are a lot of sources doesn't mean she's that notable--the sources don't go into depth. It also seems obvious that Wikipedia is unable to get this article right, and eventualism really isn't acceptable when dealing with a BLP. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Bingo. You hit it right on the head. Unless there is more sources other then what we have, and even that is considered unacceptable even by her, then what do we have? Nothing, which in a blp policy means Delete. ( I already voted, just saying...) Also, being a sex change in itself is non-notable regardless, she is not a public figure by any means, we are technically outing her, and I could go on... --Hinata talk 21:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt, including the second name redirect here. Wikipedia is essentially serving as a gossip forum and endorsing what looks like very sloppy "research." There is very little here that isn't based on WP:Original research and marginal sources. I've removed IMDB at least twice. Wikipedia should avoid causing real world harm and the subject has made it clear this article is unwanted and gossipy content is ranked higher than her own website on Google searches. Insomesia (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Real world harm" is a valid concern, however, if there was no Wikipedia article on Nusbacher then the reader who is searching for her will instead find the sensationalist Sun tabloid article and the Jew-hating Metapedia biography. If Wikipedia hosted a professional and fully factual biography Nusbacher's search results would not be quite as hurtful. Binksternet (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't work like that. We're not here to hamhandedly cure the evils of the Internet. We're here to be the best encyclopedia we can be. In this case, that means not writing anything, because the only things we can write would do more harm than good. --GRuban (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from your word "hamhandedly" I think that Wikipedia is indeed here to give the reader correct information, especially when there is incorrect information widely available. I am confident that it is less harmful to the subject for Wikipedia to carry a fact-based biography than for Wikipedia to have nothing. Binksternet (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The subject doesn't agree with you and assuming there's a deletion request, thinks that it's less harmful for Wikipedia to have nothing than to have a "fact-based biography". And she's in a better position to know than you are. Ken Arromdee (talk) 09:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and salt per above I haven't found anything that makes me believe that anything said in the article is untrue, but my impression is that too many are trying to advance a cause and/or make this person's life difficult through scandal-mongering. BLP considerations should trump the relatively slight academic notability of this person. Mangoe (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep If we were to delete the salacious, the subject still crosses a GNG threshold.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          22:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Person is not particularly notable, and Palgrave per se does not show notability - only that a very large list of people will actually include some with very limited notability. We have a person who changed names in 2007, which is not, in itself, a "gender change" as some would like to believe. The person quite well may be gender dysphoric, but that is not a measure of notability that I can see. The person has appeared on a small number of tv programmes as an "expert" of some sort, and has written some specialised books or articles which do not show up as being of sufficient earth-shaking importance to make the person notable as an author. So - not sufficiently notable = deletion (especially since the person has stated they consider themselves not to be notable per Wikipedia standards). Collect (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now on the nomination, but I have some observations. Firstly, the Independent Pink List is not a self-selecting community-based list; the Independent is a major national broadsheet newspaper. However, while inclusion on this list is a significant thing to report, I don't regard it as a sufficient claim to notability on its own. Secondly, having undergone a gender transition (whether surgical or otherwise) is not a claim of added notability; it's something a minority of people of all levels of notability do, and is not inherently newsworthy. Moreover, in British law, it's something which the subject has a reasonable legal expectation of privacy about - especially from employers - under the Gender Recognition Act. While as far I know that doesn't bind us here, we should bear it in mind. Thirdly, Hinata is wrong to say 'the subject is not LGBT' - firstly because a reliable source (The Independent) says otherwise, and secondly because if it is true that the subject has transitioned gender, that makes her trans, which is what the T in LGBT stands for. Fourthly, it seems highly unreasonable, and arguably quite disruptive, to suggest that an article should be created about a trans person that is entirely about their pre-transition identity, and uses their old name and pronouns throughout. And lastly, incompetent speculation about 'sex or gender change' doesn't seem to be moving this discussion forward at all. Why not focus on the key question: Is Lynette Nusbacher notable? AlexTiefling (talk) 08:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does not matter, regardless the subject is non-notable. Why I nominated the article for deletion is because I think we are violating the subjects privacy for no reason, and two, she is non-notable. There is no extensive history and almost all sources are ether tabloid or one line mention. Also, we do not even have confirmed she even made a sex change... which would kill a lot of the sources even though they mention very little. --Hinata talk 12:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. I therefore support your call to delete this bio. Could I ask you, though, to consider amending your choice of words regarding gender transition, please? 'Sex change' is a rather old-fashioned colloquialism for Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS), which is only one element of transition, and not one that every person transitioning goes for. It's probably clearer to talk about 'gender transition', since that focusses more appropriately on identity, rather than what people keep in their pants. Many thanks. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, assuming that people can refrain from insanity and leave the Palgrave source alone. If not, Revert it back to 2007 with the previous name, then lock the damn thing. Human.v2.0 (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, marginal notability, wishes of the subject. Yworo (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I think Carrite and Yworo are correct. So is Hinata, for the most part. Because there's no indication of a noteworthy achievement or public figure status, and because there's no source providing substantial biographical detail, a BLP on this subject is going to remain worthless at best and problematic at worst. An article is devoid of encyclopedic content when it consists of shit people think is interesting, a meaningless list of TV appearances and publications mostly lacking note among third parties (no, just being on TV doesn't make one a public figure — that takes demonstrable coverage or prominence), and outdated, contentious information that isn't exactly additive to any noteworthy aspect. Furthermore, I've seen nothing in the current or previous versions indicating the subject passes either WP:ANYBIO or WP:ACADEMIC, but even if the subject did barely pass, that's no mandate to keep, especially in light of the subject's wishes. The marginal encyclopedic merit of the article, coupled with the wishes of the subject, set beside the paucity of in-depth coverage, should help those on the fence reach the same conclusion. JFHJr (㊟) 20:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep Meeting a WP:GNG threshold in some trifling way is not enough grounds to keep, and the article keeps running afoul of WP:NPF. Palgrave is a low quality tertiary source by the way. Italick (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That reminds me of an old joke: Q: What do you call a person who graduates medical school at the bottom of his class? A: "Doctor". The point is that if a person meets our GNG threshold in a "trifling" way then they have indeed met the GNG threshold. Binksternet (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
uh, no. right there in the WP:N it states that the GNG are the minimum requirements and it specifically states that meeting them DOES NOT automatically result in the establishment of a stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny; I see it says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline". I do not see your bolded term "minimum requirements", so I wonder why you thought it worth the emphasis. In discussing whether a GNG-confirmed topic ought to stand alone as its own article, the guideline gives Wikipedia editors the leeway to form consensus not to do so, and instead to incorporate the cited text into another article. Nothing like that is under consideration here—this is a deletion discussion with no suggestion of merging with, say, Sandhurst. Rather, there are suggestions to delete and salt; a strange notion for a topic that passes GNG in however trifling a manner. Binksternet (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a word in English for this sort of thing: "censorship". ► Belchfire-TALK 01:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are carefully ignoring WP:BIODELETE: Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. Of course, this doesn't mean that such a article must be deleted, but neither are we obligated to have an article. Nusbacher doesn't want this article, and there is a strong difference of opinion on retention of the article; it seems to me that the benefit of the doubt in this policy should be given. Mangoe (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's being ignored because it doesn't apply. Nusbacher is a limited purpose public figure. ► Belchfire-TALK 01:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Belchfire, I just don't see how LPPF applies here in the slightest. Far from "thrust[ing] themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies," all evidence is that the Sun and others have dragged this out into the limelight against the subject's will. Mangoe (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, but WP:BIODEL would still apply. BIODEL applies to people who are marginally notable, which is different from non-notable; if they are non-notable we wouldn't need to use BIODEL in the first place. Ken Arromdee (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been asked by Baseball Bugs to weigh into the debate about 2nd nomination for deletion for this article on the basis of me having started the article in the 1st place. YE GADS! If I had known the can of pandoras worms box I'd opened by starting this article I think I wouldn't have bothered (to put it mildly). I initiated the article (thinking it had been done so previously) because the person in question was of notability due to his regular appearances on the various documentary channels I watch on TV. I knew nothing of the sex change issue at the time (only found out about that after being notified on my talk page due a previous deletion attempt), which I presume is the reason for the storm of controversy this page's existence has garnered in the mean time. Frankly I don't really care whether the page is deleted, renamed, has references to sex-change removed or whatever. Might get round to reading all the hoo-hah above, just to see what all the excitement is really about.1812ahill (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep After a bit of reading and sifting through my memory, here's my 2 cents worth. The article seriously downplays Dr. Aryeh's television contributions. For instance his frequent appearances on the Military History channel. (For example). If one looks at that link one will find one of Dr. Aryeh's co-contributors, a Dr. William Atwater, who clearly is notable enough to appear in Wikipedia!1812ahill (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for weighing in. I'll take a look at that. I will mention that, just appearing on the History Channel does not make one notable for a Wikipedia article. Actually even many appearances in film, televison and stage does not make one notable enough for an article on its own.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm...no. That may need an AFD discussion as well. That article contains three inline citations and two general references, both of the GRs are dead links. The first citation reference is to the US Army Ordinance website biography page and is used extensively. The second source is only a listing in the primary work and doesn't actually support the claim being made and needs secondary sourcing to even make the claim about the primary work. So, there are really only two sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and revert back to the point where it was a couple of weeks ago, where it simply acknowledges that the author used to go by this other name. There's no factual issue about that. But near as I can tell, there's no hard evidence of any sex change or gender change or whatever - the only verifiable fact is a name change. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, delete because I have a personal grudge against a person like her because of my personal belief. Wait... I am gay hater lol... Anyway, read my previous comments thoughtout this page. --Hinata talk 17:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs, I wish that were so, but while there isn't RS evidence of the change, there is plenty of RS evidence that Aryeh was considered male and Lynette is considered female, and that they're the same person. So while we can avoid writing "sex change" we can't avoid pointing out this fact, if only to make our sources make sense. Since Nusbacher seems to want to avoid this, and isn't highly notable, I'm with the "delete" voices. --GRuban (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subject is notable, per the Independent "Nusbacher has been a senior lecturer in War Studies at the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst since 1999, and is an influential military authority. She has recently advised the Government on national security strategies, and also writes a popular blog". Content issue have already been addressed elsewhere. Rich Farmbrough, 14:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Subject is not notable, she is simply a nobody who is unknown to many. A sex change - which still hasn't been verified - is not notable. --Hinata talk 17:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The spirit of WP:NPF would be to keep allegations of a sex change out of the article unless it is something particularly notable, and I think that it isn't noteworthy. The name change is different if she became notable with both names. If a source better than Palgrave (i.e. a high quality secondary source per WP:NPF) cannot be found, then she should not have been notable using both of the names. There wouldn't be a problem with citing her work under one name or the other name in some different article, depending on how it was published. Italick (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It may interest contributors (and any closing admin, for that matter) to learn that Hinata has just been blocked for trolling the LGBT project and WP:ANI itself with claims that homosexuals should be executed, and that such a law would not even be controversial. I'm slightly chilled to discover I've been discussing LGBT issues with someone who thinks I should die for my sexuality. It certainly casts this entire debate in a different light. For what it's worth, I think we should ignore Hinata's inconsistent ramblings, and delete the article because the subject is, in fact, barely notable, and would prefer the article to be removed. AlexTiefling (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is definitely marginal if it exists and generally in such cases we will defer to a deletion request from the subject. Prodego talk 01:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dweller and Collect. Cheers, LindsayHello 05:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, my default vote when a BLP subject of low, marginal, or unclear notability requests deletion of their own article. Wikipedia articles shouldn't exist to cause their subjects grief. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak IAR Delete per Herostratus.--В и к и T 12:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:SOLDIER. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am guessing you refer to WP:SOLDIER #9 in which the person's peers acknowledge the expertise shown in the person's writings. If that were the case then we should be able to find a positive peer review of Nusbacher's books or papers. Here is what I found: David Simpkin, writing a chapter within Andy King's and Michael A. Penman's book England and Scotland in the Fourteenth Century: New Perspectives, lists the "major works published on the battle" of Bannockburn, and Nusbacher's The Battle of Bannockburn is among the six listed.[3] Michael A. Penman reviewed this same book by Nusbacher but I cannot tell if it is positive or negative or both or neither.[4] Michael Brown criticizes Nusbacher's Bannockburn book by saying Nusbacher assumes as "proven fact" a theory that Barrow suggested based on common sense but not on evidence.[5] So there is one acknowledgement of Nusbacher as a major influence on the topic of Bannockburn and others who are sufficiently impressed by Nusbacher to point out its flaws and strengths. Binksternet (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you so determined to ignore the subject's own wishes? AlexTiefling (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since when do subjects get to dictate content? The only issues are notability and BLP rules. The former appears not to be settled yet. The latter is manageable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's part of the BLP policy. -- KTC (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "relative unknownness" of the subject has not yet been established. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It works the other way round. A person is not publicly well known by default. One have to prove that a subject is a well known public figure if they don't think WP:NPF should apply. KTC (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right. And that has not been established yet. My question is: At what point did the subject decide they didn't want an article about them? Was it from the beginning? Or was it only when the "Aryeh" question surfaced? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 • Alex, I don't think WP:BIODEL applies to a very public person who blogs for herself and for Huffington Post, who publishes books, who appears on TV, who enjoys public participation with SCA events and who advertises her think tank services with a domain name tied to her surname.
 • I think the least WP:HARM to Nusbacher will be if Wikipedia carries a fact-based and neutral biography which will eventually overshadow the terrible Sun tabloid piece in search results.
 • NetNus/Nusbacher's record here is bifurcated or torn—she has added to the biography indicating she wants it kept and yet she criticizes it as if she wants it deleted. (Note that she has not !voted to delete the biography in this AfD, and she did not vote to delete in the previous AfD, though she argued for deletion back in 2007 before there was a Palgrave writeup.)
 • Finally, Nusbacher's insulting effort to diminish the scholarship of the Palgrave reference strikes me false; she uses belittling put-downs such as the "Palgrave Book of Yids" and the "Palgrave Bumper Book of Jews" as if she is not proud of her Jewish heritage. However, in her personal blog posts, her Jewish Chronicle interview "Military Maven" ("I'm the open Jew"), and her Huffington Post blogs she continually points out her Jewish heritage, demonstrating great pride in it, taking her daughters to Israel during Christmas, cooking Jewish dishes such as matzoh, participating in the parade of the Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen, etc., etc. The reaction to the Palgrave book makes me think she is using bluster to hide something from us. Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
note that she has not !voted here because she has been made aware that as a person with a conflict of interest, !voting in AfDs related to them is frowned upon. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
and now after fully reading your assault on her intentions and motives, per WP:IAR I will be inviting her to respond. Such statements should not be able to be made and left to stand in an arena where the person being accused is unable to respond. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks are no good, so please, lets avoid them. Prodego talk 21:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Give Nusbacher's apparent attempt to get the article deleted by proxy, it would be best if Nusbacher came here directly and speak for herself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a far stretch of the imagination to say that User:Hinata- currently blocked for gross violations of "hate speech trolling" against LGBT people - was requesting a deletion of this article acting as a proxy for Hinata. It is my own shame that I acted as a proxy for Hinata in technically opening this AfD on Hinata's behalf.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Hinata was proxying Hinata. Be that as it may, while his push for deletion was in bad faith, your attempt to help Hinata was in good faith. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This person has identified themselves via WP:OTRS in the past to make their concerns known, that is what OTRS is for. There is no, need, call, or reason for them to prostrate themselves personally before the likes of you or the other rabble of an Article deletion discussion. Tarc (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough, there are other users here claiming that OTRS cannot be cited for anything, as it's supposed to be private. That, I wouldn't know, as I've never set foot in OTRS, whatever it is. Otherwise, your comments make no sense. But now that the subject has commented directly (see below), it's a moot point. Although it's certainly odd to see an article subject trying to argue that they are not notable. Usually it's the opposite. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge the subject of this article has never made matzah, but has made matzah brei, matzah cupcakes, matzah kugel and matzah balls. The subject of the article is, however, a professional historian who understands that academics have to make a living, sometimes by writing or editing books of marginal merit. One does not condemn Roger Scruton for editing the Palgrave Dictionary of Political Thought (£11.69), nor the editors of the Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Diplomacy (£18.99), the New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (£1,940), nor the Palgrave dictionaries of Women's Biography, Chaucer, Anthropology, Transnational History, Psychology, Tennyson or Anglo-Jewish History. Any derisive references to the book are in the context of overestimation of its scholarly merit as compared with its splendid price (£123.50 new, you save £6.50). Is it inconsistent to be proudly Jewish, stand out in the cold at the Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen and Women remembrance parade, read the Torah in a synagogue, teach Hebrew School or otherwise act like a Jew; and yet dream of a world in which William Rubinstein could write his scholarly treatises like The Myth of Rescue without having to resort to writing a book calculated to sit on the shelf of every synagogue library in America? Perhaps. Does that mean the subject is 'using bluster to hide something from us'? An untidy office at Sandhurst? A rare copy of "Lobscouse & Spotted Dog: Which It's A Gastronomic Companion to the Aubrey-Maturin Novels"? Skill at calligraphy? Perhaps a childhood case of varicella zoster, parotitis or scarlet fever? A fondness for anchovies?

Yes, that is the only rational conclusion. /sarcasm

The idea that participating in the public activities of the Society for Creative Anachronism with her children should somehow make the subject a public figure is a fascinating one. Given the number of people who participate in the Society's activities the authoring task would be significant, but trolling SCA web sites should provide a good start for anyone who wishes to begin adding them one by one to Wikipedia. Be sure to add their SCA names to the first line of the lede.

When did the subject decide that she was not happy with the Wikipedia entry? From the time in 2007 when her boss in the Cabinet Office told her that it revealed private medical information about her.

Why did the subject add information from time to time? Because when the entry returned from being deleted the first time it consisted largely of private medical information referenced to that same article in the "Sun" and it seemed appropriate to add some facts. Did that indicate that she wanted it kept? No.

Would a neutral Wikipedia entry outweigh the Web presence of the "Sun" article? Possibly, but remember that all the Metapedia and other lookalike bios on the Web were originally cribbed from WP, and if the entry is retained the personal medical information will creep back in line by line as it has done over the last 5 years.

Apologies if the above paragraphs seem an over-reaction to what was, perhaps, an innocent suggestion that the subject of this article might be hiding something. NetNus (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen anyone here insist that a medical condition was being discussed. The wording "gender change" is so general that it encompasses a variety of transsexual decisions. The basic assertion made by that term as used in the biography is that the subject acted as a man in society until 2007, after which the subject acted as a woman in society. There is no medical component, only a social component. The article is not delighting in a revelation of which sort of wrinkly bits are under the dress blues. Binksternet (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, Ms. Nusbacher, for our possibly callous seeming discussion of what must, no doubt, be a deeply emotional subject. We are each, in our own way, trying to do "what is right" - whatever that may be. --GRuban (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - notability is borderline at best, definitely not enough for having such problematic article here.--Staberinde (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per the subject's preference. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or alternatively Delete and salt or this issue will recur. A good test of notability is that when the biopage is deleted, someone recreates it because they perceive that it's needed, and that's the case here. She's too well known amongst military historians. Best solution is a redirect from Aryeh Nusbacher to Lynette, with a one line statement that she transitioned from (boyname)in 2007, no other details. That's noteworthy now, but won't be in the future, it's only necessary so that academic citations can be tracked back. Nettie's a friend of mine. I've corresponded to her about this. To summarise her attitude "If I thought there was a chance of an entry that didn't make me ill ..." . I think there is, there has to be. This is something of a test case for the future, regarding Trans and Intersex people. She'd prefer obscurity, but with her appearances on the History Channel and Time Commanders that's not possible. Zoe Brain (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt, for reasons I've already argued on the talk page. In my view, this person fails our notability guidelines for people as it is; at best she's a borderline case, and there are strong reasons (the subject's own wishes, and BLP/privacy issues) why we should lean towards deletion here. The arguments for keeping this article are weak, while the arguments for deleting it are persuasive and compelling. Robofish (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject is not notable under our usual rules as an academic or an author. 4 books have been mentioned: "Sweet irony" is only the subject MA thesis; The triple thread, only the d.Phil thesis. The battle of Bannockburn iis held in 113 libraries; War and Conflict is a children's book held in 220. WorldCat. the academic position is a senior lecturer, which corresponds to a US Associate Professor, most of whom are not notable. This is what I said in the discussion in 2010 ,and it remains my opinion. The question before us is whether a person who would not otherwise be notable in their profession, becomes notable by being discussed in the context of their personal characteristics. A strict reading of WP:GNG would say that they do--and to my mind that shows the utter absurdity of the GNG. We can take the subject's wishes into account to some extent if we choose to--I consider that an exceptionally bad rule, because (a) it lets the subject in effect censor the article by being willing to approve it only if they say or do not say what the subject desires, and (b) it caters to borderline subjects who want publicity at the expense of those not interested in it, which is encouraging promotionalism. It's time we rejected it as policy or guideline, and replaced it by the opposite, a statement that the subject's wishes are in all circumstances irrelevant, though they can just as anyone else, call attention to aspects that would lead us to include or not include the article: the fundamental policy at issue is NPOV. The only true BLP consideration is DO NO HARM, which is the fundamental basis of the other parts of BLP policy. I don't think any harm in the usual sense is done here--the argument would be the embarrassment to a person not notable of having their activities hyped as if they were. I accept that people can feel this way, but unfortunately for making it a rule, some people of very considerable notability have said similarly: some have considered it a disgrace to have an article about them in a publication such as ours, which should no more be a consideration that the more common occurrence that some people think it a disgrace that we do not include them. There is however a special factor here: the embarrassment to a person otherwise not notable for their accomplishments at being considered notable because of their personal characteristics. We do consider this in the context of BLP1E, and I accept that we can consider it more widely, though I call it NOT TABLOID. I think it applies here. (Obviously, if the personal matters were to become for whatever reason actually famous, it would be another matter, just as BLP1E currently says, but that's hardly the case here.) DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree in the outcome, I'm not happy with the notion that doing no harm is somehow in some sort of conflict with attentiveness to the subject's wishes. Only they can answer to the question of whether they are harmed. One subject may seek obscurity and another notoriety, and we would harm one by drawing attention to them while harming the other by denying them notice. There is some difference in that obscurity is easily enough remedied after the fact, to the degree that we afford publicity; but the glare of publicity is difficult to shadow once its light has been shone on someone. That is why our BLP standards give privilege to privacy and do not favor publicity. Our purpose her need not and should not be as private investigators working diligently to expose every unsavory detail of a person's life. Mangoe (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt Opinion revised from above. Extremely arguable notability strongly trumped by BLP issues. --Dweller (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and recreate from scratch: in my opinion, her appearance on the Pink Lists give her notability, but I can see major issues with the current treatment of the subject. Sceptre (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete and salt. I think that the subject is past the GNG benchmark, but not by a very large margin, and that call depends very much on the discussion about specific sources which is a whole new can of worms which I don't want to open. However, the drama around this article far outweighs its encyclopædic value; deleting it would remove our coverage of an interesting (but low-notability) individual, but it would end lots of drama, free up editors to go do something else productive, and hopefully end some distress to the subject. It pains me to say this, but I think deletion is the lesser evil here. (Edited to clarify: I think that deleting without salting would be worse, because we'd get much more drama in the near future. Ditto for Aryeh Nusbacher, which is currently a redirect.) bobrayner (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2013 (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.
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lynette_Nusbacher_(2nd_nomination)