Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arlene Istar Lev


 * 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. Good consensus that the basic criteria for Bios are met, with strong arguments for two potential notability routes made (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Arlene Istar Lev

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional biography of someone who has had adjunct roles at a couple of places but not achieved tenure, no evidence of passing WP:PROF, sources are affiliated. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comments - I am acquainted with this person personally, very well known in Upstate New York, but more as a LGBTQIA activist and writer than as a academic. We're not friends (IRL or Facebook) but I was on the board of a charity for which she later worked. I'm not certain the subject passes general notability. To avoid accusations, I am not voting on this one. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Lev was a professor of mine and she brought the most diverse information into the classes she taught. Her Family Therapy class countered the over emphasis on heterosexual relationships taught in social work. Her class assisted me in becoming more aware of how language and questions can shut people down. She is probably one of the most knowledgeable people in LGBTQIA issues. She is well respected in the field. I have had instructors with PHDs that had no where near the breadth and depth of knowledge she had or with the amazing presentation skills.
 * Despite these comments, Lev's role as a teacher is not what makes the subject notable (non-tenured faculty almost never make to notability). Lev is possibilty notable as the writer of a well-known book, and work as a clinical social worker. The discussion about teaching is irrelevant, with all apologies to both sides, bordering on a straw man argument. Its as if we had a discussion about whether George W. Bush is a notable artist. Bearian (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Lev's contributions should not be assessed under academic criteria, at least not solely. She has written a book that has been reviewed in multiple peer-reviewed journals in her field (1, 2, 3, 4), which seems likely to qualify under WP:BK. I also believe that she generally qualifies under criteria 1 and 2 of WP:ANYBIO: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times" and "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Her 2013 award from American Family Therapy Academy is one of the top awards given by an invitation-only society of senior family therapists, and her book, which is a key text in teaching family therapists about transgender people in a family context, won the APA Division 44 Distinguished Book of the Year award. She has been cited as an expert source in multiple articles about transgender care and sex therapy by a variety of independent, legitimate print newspapers both in the New York state region (1, 2) and outside it (NY Times, San Jose Mercury News). Drelusis (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Given that her books have many reviews - for example Transgender Emergence which is also well-cited, she should qualify under WP:NAUTHOR. Hzh (talk) 09:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per . Daask (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep in particular per 's analysis. Some of these are significant awards. I do think the article stands to have some copy editing, and still needs to have more sources (especially secondary). But it should be here. For certain. --Theredproject (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm a practising psychotherapist in London, UK. I don't know the subject of the article personally - have never met her. But I'm familiar with her work. I have overlapping areas of speciality. And I know people who have worked with her or who know her personally. I can confirm that in her specialist field she has a very high reputation, partly based on her major book, Transgender Emergence, partly on her regular stream of articles, and her outreach in giving lectures and teaching / training. I'm in line with most comments above. Her academic position is not that of a tenured professor, or of someone with 50 books in print and a Nobel Prize. But she has made and continues to make a very solid contribution to a difficult field, that of gender changes and unusual gender expression. She is an authority there, her book is an important, much used and quoted text, and is regularly set for training, in Higher Education contexts and those for the training of psychotherapists, psychologists and social workers. I also agree that the article as it now stands is not one of the nicest. It is noticeable that no new articles have been listed after 2013, whereas the subject of the article has continued to publish a number of them. There needs to be some prioritisation of the articles and book chapters quoted; the main body of the article can do with tidying up and a better organisation, and the article should include a few sentences about what her opinions and positions are, and what her contribution to the field has been. The book Transgender Emergence should be more clearly highlighted. Also the article is indeed lacking in secondary sources, and several of them should be added. I would love to be the one making a number of those changes and to revamp the article. However, I am hopelessly squeezed for time in the next 4-6 weeks due to deadlines for publication. I would expect to be able to make some smaller changes soon, and to complete a gradual revamp over the next two, max. three months. While that is going on, my perception is that to continue to head the article as "considered for deletion" might be less appropriate. Afaics heading it with "This article has multiple issues" might cover the situation much better. But I'm not enough of a Wikipedia expert or insider to know what is best to do practically. To delete the article would I believe be a mistake, and deprive Wikipedia of information about a significant author and practitioner in a difficult field.


 * 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.