Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Benjamin Syndrome
- 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 redirect to Transsexualism. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Harry Benjamin Syndrome[edit]
Harry Benjamin Syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log) The subject of this article fails the notability criterion. The sources cited within do not mention "Harry Benjamin syndrome". The pages given as external links with official sounding names like HBS international...are demonstrably the personal webpages of advocates for the HBS idea. The subject of the article has no currency as of yet in any medical or scientific circles, as demonstrated by the total lack of sources that comply with WP:RS,WP:MEDRS. It may in the future, but it does not now,wikipedia is not a crystal ball. For all of these reasons I think this article should be deleted. Hfarmer (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. There's already adequate coverage at Transsexualism, including the proposal to name it Harry Benjamin (or Benjamin's) Syndrome. Hairhorn (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going with delete, on account that there appears to be no evidence that Dr. Benjamin is the one who named this after himself. Granted that sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but maybe I'm missing evidence to the contrary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am hesitant to say that a term that is so widely used is a neologism or non-notable. The article seems more like a personal essay. Whether it has currency in medical or scientific circles or not does not prevent it from being notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. A redirect may be the answer. Drawn Some (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Comment I agree that scientific circles are not the end all and be all of notability. However a term can't just be widely used to be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. According to WP:Notability"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." A Google searchgoogle:"Harry Benjamin Syndrome turns up a number of personal webpages, and blogs, containing opinion pieces by transsexuals themselves which are not peer reviewed at all and are self published sources. Such sources are generally not acceptable in Wikipedia. Searching google scholar [1] turns up only one scholarly reference which uses it at all and says "TEAM was originally called the ‘Harry Benjamin Syndrome Support Group’ by its founder,Jessica Park, but this name was not really taken up by the membership..."(see the google scholar results). Searching google news [2] turns up absolutely no uses of this in any of the numerous sources that google news follows. This all suggest to me that this subject is not yet notable enough to merit it's own article. It is use by reliable sources not just any ol website that makes something notable enough for wikipedia.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear, scholarly research and scientific acceptance are not necessary for this to be notable. It could be something absurd like phrenology or shark cartilage and still be notable and verifiable. I'm not arguing for inclusion or exclusion until I see what more people have to say. Drawn Some (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To be even more clear and for the record I never said that scientific or scholarly journals are all that matters to notability. I have said that personal webpages or blogs, even if accessed by way of a domain name like somethingofficialsounding.org are still personal webpages or blogs. That is what all of the websites that purvey HBS are.--Hfarmer (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear, scholarly research and scientific acceptance are not necessary for this to be notable. It could be something absurd like phrenology or shark cartilage and still be notable and verifiable. I'm not arguing for inclusion or exclusion until I see what more people have to say. Drawn Some (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Transsexualism as a plausible search term.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
::Do you have a reason for it to be redirected? I'm trying to form my own opinion. Drawn Some (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Transsexualism. This article is an advertisement and essentially duplicates Transsexualism. It is a popular term and deserves a redirect, but it has little currency in journalism or books. Note that Benjamin Syndrome is an entirely different disorder. Drawn Some (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepThe subject in its entirety is not about a medical syndrome per se, it is a patient advocacy movement. And as an aside, "syndromes" are not named by the people themselves, it is an honorary process. I'll be adding articles about the activism undertaken when I gather them. Notability extends outside of US borders. Describing this subject as another term for transsexualism is misleading. As far as "scientific" peer review, where is that in things like "transwoman", etc.? Agree that notability comes from outside medical circles at this point, though there are some doctors and governments that are using the term. Article needs a rewrite. Here's one mention on BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7013579.stm Ariablue (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentWP:Notability specifies significant coverage in reliable sources. That says..."The decision ends a long-running legal process for Nati, who suffers from the transsexual disorder known as Harry Benjamin Syndrome." What does that sources say about HBS? It basically equates it with transsexualism and tells us nothing more than a name. IMO that is hardly significant coverage. The link you have provided argues for a redirect to transsexualism. Can you find a source which conforms to WP:MEDRS which can back up the medical claim that transsexualism is different from HBS?--Hfarmer (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It tells us there are at least two views of the topic, one of which is being suppressed by actions like yours. Argentina has adopted the HBS term, and the differences between this birth condition and what is currently known as "transsexualism" will become more clear. There is medical evidence for the position this is an intersex condition, and there is a grass roots patient advocacy campaign to see that this problem is addressed. You have been working with/for people who have a campaign against the intersex, and your agenda should be known to other editors on Wikipedia. I'm hoping that anyone here who happens to care about the reputation of wikipedia understands the situation, if nothing else. Ariablue (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that you refuse to present the reliable sources to back up all of your rhetoric. Every fact, evry point in an article needs a source. Every article needs enough sources to make it notable. It needs to have had "significant coverage"...The burden isnt on me to prove it's not notable. If you want the article kept find the kind and number of sources I describe. Wikipedia policies demand it.--Hfarmer (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like so many other generic terms from the past that modern thought and research has now retermed more precisely HARRY BENJAMIN SYNDROME is the correct and only term suitable for the concerned group. HBS sufferers are the only people who have felt to be trapped in the wrong body consistently as far back as they can remember which is consistent with Harry Benjamin's research and practice with many genuine sufferers of what must be named Harry Benjamin Syndrome to distinguish them from all the other 'transgendered' who only came to desire to wear female clothing as puberty made them susceptible to arousal from the phemerones from their mothers and sisters unwashed lingerie in exactly the same way dogs will sniff at the crotches of both boys and girls. Phemerone science was not available to Harry benjamin or he would have spotted its link to most crossdressers, transvesties and transgendered's love and masturbatory arousal to lingerie. It is shame at having to admit this thast is the cause of the hostility shown by transgendereds to the much smaller group of genuine HBS. Fleur —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleurblack (talk • contribs) 17:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC) I have moved this comment from the top into the body of the discussion where it is supposed to be (don't belive me look at all the other discussions and how they are formatted). The diff for the original comment is here--Hfarmer (talk) 04:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Harry Benjamin Syndrome is not the same as transsexualism or transsexuality but is the correct title for the very small group of people who genuineley feel to be trapped in bodies that do not match their brain . All other transgenders are just sex driven or autocunniphilic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleurblack (talk • contribs) 10:49, 18 May 2009 (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.