Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Amesbury


 * 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 of the debate was KEEP. Mo0 [ talk ] 16:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Amesbury
Deletion was requested by an anonymous editor (who, on the balance of evidence, I assume to be Amesbury herself.) The situation is that the subject is a transgendered woman who is primarily notable for two Top 40 hit singles that predate her gender transition. The anon editor three times attempted to rewrite the article to eliminate any acknowledgement of the transgender issue while still retaining credit for the songs, even though the songs are verifiably credited to a performer named "Bill" rather than Barbara. 

She then requested deletion when she was advised that the article could not simply pretend that she was known as Barbara at the time the songs charted, and thus the only options are either to acknowledge that she was once known as Bill, or to delete the article altogether since the songs are the main reason she's notable enough for an article in the first place.

Thus, my questions are as follows:
 * 1) Does the subject of an article have the right to dictate what Wikipedia can or cannot write about her, if the dispute has more to do with personal image management than accuracy?
 * 2) If so, then how else can Wikipedia handle the topic, given that we quite rightly should have an article on any performer who has had verifiable Top 40 hits?

This is a procedural nomination because the request was made — personally, however, I do not favour deletion: the subject is legitimately notable and Wikipedia isn't doing its job if notable subjects can't be on here. Bearcat 02:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Retain. Subject is a public figure, notable, and interesting. "Personal image management," as you call it, is indeed not WP's purpose. Dave 02:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. AFD is not the proper place to resolve this; Barbara seems notable to me. Ashibaka tock 02:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I agree...but a deletion request was made by the editor in question, so I complied procedurally. Bearcat 02:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know-- just pointing it out to Barbara, whereever she is. Ashibaka tock 03:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable performer. But perhaps you made her a promise you could not keep when you told her either the article acknowledges Bill or gets deleted? HollyAm 03:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how there are any other options...if Bill goes, the songs go too, and if the songs go, her entire basis for being notable enough to have a Wikipedia article goes with them. So there's simply no way this article can realistically be kept without the name Bill in it. Bearcat 03:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right, but the version of the article up for deletion keeps the Bill references, so there is really no reason for anyone to vote for deletion. And I just got the feeling that she thinks it can be deleted just like that. HollyAm 04:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems like an NPOV dispute.  &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 04:19Z 
 * Speedy Keep. Subject is notable and this is an encyclopedia; we must maintain factual accuracy, especially when blurring the lines would lead to confusion and ambiguity. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. If I were you I'd leave a comment for the anonymous editor.  I think admin would honor a verified request from the real Barbara Amesbury.  Until then we really don't know if it's her or someone else.  I mean it's possible that the real Barbara is proud of the article and this anonymous person has a personal grudge against her or is a random bigot. Durova 06:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article shouldn't be deleted just because the subject doesn't want it to be known that she's trans (if indeed the subject is the person who requested deletion) -- if somebody is out, they're out. Catamorphism 08:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: couldn't the article be moved to "Bill Amesbury" and Barbara not be mentioned? The name that the songs were recorded under is the important one. This is assuming it's actually her. -- Kjkolb 13:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute. Are there any reliable sources establishing that Bill and Barbara Amesbury are the same person?  It's not that I doubt it, but I don't think we can legitimately include this in the article without citing a reputable source, and the only sources I can find are a queer radio show playlist and a freeservers website.  Another website credits the song itself to Bill Amesbury but adds, "Written by Barbara Amesbury," implying that they are not the same person.  So I vote we move this to Bill Amesbury, who is certainly notable, and excise references to Barbara unless a reliable source is cited, in which case I would be in favor of keeping the article. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 15:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Bill is Barbara; the writing credits on her songs were changed from Bill to Barbara after her name changed (which is an entirely normal thing — a songwriter who changes his or her name always has the option of having their past songwriting credits recredited to the new name.) The performing credit remained as Bill, however, because a male singing voice is a lot harder to gloss over. Bearcat 18:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I don't doubt it; what I want to know is, where did you find this information? - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 18:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * keep. this is an encyclopedia doings its best at getting facts right. Kingturtle 08:11, 18 January 2006 (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.