Deletion of Lynette Nusbacher (2nd nomination)

Comment: 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 , 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SOLDIER)

Comment: The nomination is misguided as there is already broad consensus on the Talk page for GNG and there is evidence the subject meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: Meeting a  threshold in some trifling way is not enough grounds to keep, and the article keeps running afoul of . Palgrave is a low quality tertiary source by the way
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NPF)

Comment: 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 riginal 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Orphan (WP:O)

Comment: Meets  because of coverage in the following sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: for reasons I've Talk:Lynette Nusbacher#Time for a new AFD?|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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: as expressed http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lynette_Nusbacher&diff=531804594&oldid=531804395 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 .  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:BIODEL)

Comment: 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  or , 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:RESUME||WP:V||WP:ANYBIO||WP:ACADEMIC||WP:42)