This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carrite (talk | contribs) at 16:31, 8 January 2013 (→Lynette Nusbacher). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:31, 8 January 2013 by Carrite (talk | contribs) (→Lynette Nusbacher)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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)
- Keep. Meets WP:GNG because of coverage in the following sources:
• William D. Rubinstein, Michael Jolles, Hilary L. Rubinstein, ed. (2011). The Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 727. ISBN 1403939101.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
• 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)
- Keep. The nomination is misguided as there is already broad consensus on the Talk page for GNG and there is evidence the subject meets WP:PROF. ► Belchfire-TALK 03:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral - I don't actually think Binksternet provided the best sources to prove notability in the discussion. Individual "community" listing or mention is not exactly a way to determine notability. I had thought the figure was notable originally, but I am not clear that the person being named here can be seen as notable enough even under their own website description .--Amadscientist (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- if (and there should be no question, but at Misplaced Pages sometimes BLP and logic and sanity are not allowed to be in the same place at the same time) The Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History is determined to meet the WP:RS requirements, then keep. If it for some insane quirk of BLP application overriding all logic and standard definition of reliable sources is determined NOT to be a reliable source, then we have insufficient third party content to show notability for Lynette Nusbacher, so delete Lynette Nusbacher. However, even without the Palmgrave, there is marginally enough reliable third party sources for a weak keep for Aryeh Nusbacher. The Palmgrave is the only reliable source connecting the works of Aryeh Nusbacher to the name Lynette.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Really? Gee, I guess that we should re-write the entire Misplaced Pages: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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Delete 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Keep - easily meets WP:GNG - sex change raises nobility and should be reported with careful consideration, but should be reported - Youreallycan 11:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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.
- This needs to either be signed or stricken. Carrite (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)