Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Chaikof

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 delete. I'm setting aside commentary about the actions of the article subject, and any back-and-forth about editor behavior; this isn't the place for it. We are nonetheless left with a clear consensus that GNG is not met here, and the other IAR arguments for notability did not gain consensus either. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Chaikof (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article is not notable. The majority of the sources included in the article are first-person (based on self-reporting and/or brief mentions in interviews, anecdotes, or blog posts), and the notability claims seem to include having a genetic disease, winning a middle-school science fair, and being photographed for a poster as a youngster.

I communicated with the page creator about the nature of the sources and some inaccuracies on the talk page. I'm concerned by the creator's responses -- admitting that they were adding more information as retaliation for what appears to be good-faith blanking -- that this is in fact an attempt at doxxing a non-notable person with whom they have some sort of personal disagreement. (To wit, since my most recent edits to clean up dead citations and correct the name of the science fair, the page author has added the subject's full birthdate to the article.) Kerri9494 (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Strong keep. Stop lying All information in the article is from what has been published earlier (ergo doxxing accusations are absurd). We know very well that the sources in the article are independent, detailed, secondary sources, which consist of in-depth coverage in many prestigious publications like University of Toronto, Jewish Advocate, Moment Magazine, Deaf Life, just to name a few. Those aren't blogs or self-reporting! Also...

0. "Good-faith blanking"?!?!?! No. People aren't permitted to unilaterally blank a well-sourced Wikipedia article without discussion, ESPECIALLY if it is their own article. Period. That's vandalism. And Ms. Chaikof was rightly told she was completely out of line by even trying to edit her own page, much less wholly blank it and replace the text with "removed my personal information" (which, I reiterate, it not personal information as she made herself available to the media to publish!)

1. The article's notability is based on this person being an icon in the oralist world and prominent cochlear implant, and having media coverage in numerous major media outlets as a results. In fact, she is the ONLY pediatric prelingual CI recipient with a Wikipedia article. Deleting her article would mean that nobody can read about an example of a prelingual pediatric recipient here. Sure, there are some sources that contain interviews, but many of the other sources just contain a quote here and there with the rest of the text being by a journalist (and the books like Wired for Sound). So this person absolutely meets WP:GNG due to extensive independent media coverage - after all, she is covered in detail the Times of Israel, Moment Magazine, University of Toronto, Jewish Journal, The Weekly News, and described in many more independent books (cited in the article) such as Wired for Sound plus even a mention in Scientific American. Those aren't self-reporting and blogs! And there's probably a lot more print sources that I haven't even found yet (I will make a point of finding more on my next Library of Congress visit)

2. You have not mentioned a SINGLE thing that you consider to be an innaccuracy/matter of factual dispute in the article. The article cites numerous non-primary sources, from books and newspapers to magazines. This person is clearly the most famous and media-covered pediatric cochlear implant recipient in the device's entire existance.

3. In the very recent past, an IP account that was certainly from the subject of the article repeatedly blanked the page, replacing the contents with "removing my personal information" (a huge violation of Wikipedia policy) and continued to do so despite being told not to by other editors. And now, just a little while after than happened, and editor who has been inactive for months and demonstrates the same lack of understanding about basic Wikipedia functions (ex, forgetting to sign posts, writing on other peoples userpages, etc) is heavily pushing for deletion? That's rather sus.

4. I only wrote information that was available to the general public via newspapers, magazines, and books. NOTHING in the article is private. This is a public figure who made themself available to the media and is being summarized in Wikipedia as a highly notable cochlear implant recipient. That is NOT doxxing. It is completely permissible to include a full birthdate in a BLP if you have a source for the information (the book I cited). And I doubt it's a coincidence that the pages previously cited in the article have recently dissapeared from the WayBackMachine.

5. You have no grounds to even presume I have a personal disagreement with Ms. Chaikof (putting aside the obvious infuriating annoyance at her attempts to vandalize the article I wrote). I humbly suggest that you read WP:Assume good faith to understand that such accusations require better evidence than (gasp) creating a neutral-toned Wikipedia article for someone who has received significant media coverage. When I first publisher her article and emailed her asking to release a photo under a CC-BY-SA license, I was expecting her to be thoroughly delighted to finally have one. I was utterly shocked when she replied insisting that I delete it and followed it up with taking down the Cochlear Implant Online website, which had been a very helpful resource during preliminary research for other Wikipedia articles that I've worked on.

Overall, it is fairly obvious that Ms. Chaikof who clearly doesn't want a Wikipedia article is behind this deletion campaign. It is not an acceptable reason to delete the article just out of her not wanting a Wikipedia article out of dislike that it makes easier to find information that she already allowed to be public via accepting interviews and bragging on her blog about being mentioned in some of those publications. (clearly even she doesn't buy this "not notable" BS). TLDR - most famous pediatric cochlear implant recipient/most famous cochlear implant advocate. Too much independent media coverage to not be considered notable.--RespectCE (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete being in the Peace Corps isn't notable, she might have a shot for being an early cochlear implant person, but most of the citations are tangential. She could be a brief mention in the cochlear implant article. Nothing terribly notable about her otherwise I'm afraid. Oaktree b (talk) 02:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: She's not notable for being in the peace corps. She's notable for being a widely lauded early pediatric cochlear implant recipient and cochlear implant advocate.--RespectCE (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But we have nothing showing she's "lauded", widely or not. Most of what's used are primary sources as explained below, or passing mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Bamyers99:, @Oopsemoops:, @Reaper Eternal: since they are involved in this matter having dealt with the previous and out-of-line attempts to remove the article.--RespectCE (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment most of the sources used aren't even about this person. Washington Post article is about a different person that mentions Rachel in passing. The Peace Corps article is an article she wrote, and the first two are from books she's written. This is a badly-cobbled together collection of facts, not using RS. She's a long way from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even doing a broad Google search, I get the collection of articles already used as sources and her various social media links. She hasn't gathered much mainstream attention, that's the issue. She might be notable in the public eye, but she isn't for wikipedia's purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 02:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The books I cited are not written by her. And I'm pretty sure University of Toronto, Moment Magazine, Times of Israel, Weekly News, and Deaf Life are not deprecated sources. While the Scientific American and WashPo articles were a passing mention, many others were highly detailed - like the one in Deaf Life and the Wired for sound book (and the other books) and magazines like Moment Magazone are NOT by her, but independent writers. And I find it concerning that we are ignoring the fact that this nomination is by what is almost certainly a sock of the IP that recently vandalized the article.--RespectCE (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please go report the socking then. Regardless of why the article was nominated, we're here to review if it should be kept. That is was nominated by a "sock" isn't really the issue we're discussing here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to inject further opinions on deletion here, but as the nominator, I will assert that I'm not the subject of the article, not a sock puppet for the subject of the article, and have never met the subject of the article. Kerri9494 (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have already filed a sock report.--RespectCE (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I declined the A7 speedy. I am curious what on earth was going on with this diff, however. This is definitely not "speedy keep" material, by the way. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be the Barbra Striesand effect. If she hadn't vandalized the article, I would have lost interest in the article, moved on, and it would have remained in its original state. After the article bombed my watchlist I felt I needed to give it more attention. Furthermore, expanding an article greatly deters further vandalism attempts.--RespectCE (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    So you were retaliating against the subject of the BLP? That's...very not cool. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Longer articles tend to get paid attention to more, reducing vandalism risk. I would have inevitably expanded it anyway after a few months of procrastinating, but after dropping a doozy on my watchlist this article's editing priority shot up, which wouldn't have happened had the article not been attacked.--RespectCE (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete There is very little in the references that suggests the subject is notable. With effort it is vaguely possible that the standard could be met, but given the subject doesn't appear to want the attention, I don't think this is a fight worth having. JMWt (talk) 04:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we should reward dirty underhanded tactics to push for article deletion from parties who don't want articles. Ms. Chaikof should have posted on the talkpage, not vandalized Wikipedia. Giving in to vandals will only further incentivize the practice. If there is some specific piece of information that she doesn't want in the article, she should have asked on the talkpage if it could be removed, not repeatedly trying to blank the whole page.--RespectCE (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RespectCE: Can you please stop bludgeoning folks who are trying to discuss the article in natural way, that will eventually lead to conensus. Stating things like "out of dislike" or "out of line" or "Stop lying". is not WP:AGF. If you keep it up, you might end up at WP:ANI. Please concentrate on content not on the people discussing the article. scope_creep^Talk 14:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: I will try to remain civil, but the nominator has made this rather personal by throwing various unfounded accusations at me personally for writing the article (ex, claiming that it is doxxing) and falsely insinuating that the article has no good sources. That doesn't help maintain a discussion, and I have a right to defend my dignity in the face of this and rebutt patetnly false claims made in the discussion (ex, claims that the books cited were written by her despite the fact that they were by different authors like Charlotte DeWitt, Beverly Biderman, Cynthia Farley, etc. And the article that was written by her is cited only for the information in the section that provides author information that was written by the staff of the Usher organization, not her.--RespectCE (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BLPKIND describes exactly this situation. The subject has had it pretty tough, is clearly upset by the page and in my view we need to be kind. There's nothing overwhelming here that suggests we cannot possibly survive without the page, and everything to suggest that she's of marginal notability at best. One of the links is a newspaper article where she speaks up for someone else in trouble. Maybe you are taking this a touch too personally RespectCE. JMWt (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JMWt: Wikipedia will be deeply lacking if this article is deleted; she is currently the ONLY prelingual pediatric CI recipient with an article right now. The subject is a role model and certainly the most prominent person with Usher Syndrome. Having an example that a person with it can still accomplish a lot (learning French, serving in the Peace Corps, founding a highly popular blog) will serve to be helpful to many other people with Usher, especially Type 1F that she and her family advocate research for so much. I don't envy Ms. Chaikof by any means, but deleting her Wikipedia article is not a good way to help people with disabilities - especially since it reduces representation of diversity in the D/deaf community that Chaikof herself advocates for greater broader representation of. What I take personally is the fact that I am being accused of "doxxing" her by writing an article using information already published from a variety of highly respectable sources. I certainly hope Ms. Chaikof one day realizes how important it is to the little-d community, cochlear implant users, hearing aid users alike, that she has a Wikipedia article that shows what people like her (and with similar conditions) can do. A look at my edit history shows this; I have written expensively about various CI companies, gotten people with various CI sound processors to donate photos to Commons; I have even uploaded pics of my shitty Unitron hearing aids to Commons. And I hope to write additional articles about HA and CI users besides Ms. Chaikof.--RespectCE (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've been asked to stop but you haven't stopped. Instead you continue making the same claims about a BLP and other editors here. Do you actually want this to go to WP:ANI? JMWt (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly am I supposed to say here? You addressed your post to me by name. My recent most didn't even repeat or say ANYTHING negative, only offering a perspective noting general under-representation of cochlear implant and hearing aid recipients in Wikipedia. It's not exactly a secret that Wikipedia needs a bit of updates on all things hearing technology related (which as I noted in the previous post, is demonstrated in articles that aren't about her at all that are dominated by more obsolete tech). Heck, I'm even suggesting some kind of comprimise, ex, making the article a redirect to a different article (be it cochlear implants or Usher syndrome) but would keep the page history in case she gets a lot more media coverage/more media coverage found to use in a new article version--RespectCE (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, we've gotten your point, clearly. Badgering gets us nowhere. We're trying to discuss sourcing for the article. I'm still not convinced we're at GNG. She could have a brief mention in the cochlear implant article perhaps, a stand-alone article about her doesn't seem warranted. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for "compromise." The subject neither meets the GNG nor any other notability criteria, period. It is not a credible search term for much of anything. There's certainly no prejudice against recreation should the subject ever achieve notability, but it's not as if there's much prospect of that. Ravenswing 20:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you need to look beyond the 1-second google search results and stop pretending that the PRINT sources that are more detailed don't exist.--RespectCE (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm not convinced that this article meets the requirements laid out in the general notability guidelines. Particularly, most of the provided sources are tangentially related at best (we require significant coverage to establish notability). Accordingly, given that the subject does not want an article about herself here, we should delete this page (see WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE) since she is of very marginal notability at best. Furthermore, I've lost a lot of good faith in the author—they admit to retaliating against Rachel's attempt to delete the article about herself and call it "vandalism" in blatant disregard for WP:BLP. They only reverted the mass addition of content when Kerri9494 (talk · contribs) correctly pointed out that it was mostly sourced to interviews and other primary sources. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Disability, and Massachusetts. TJMSmith (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Yes, I get that the article creator is intensely (if not obsessively) focused on the subject and her family -- also creating an article on her father -- but their rush to create one- and two-sentence sub-stubs [1] hasn't apparently included the knowledge to write sound BLP articles. This particular one is signally short of reliable, independent, third party sources that actually provide significant coverage -- as opposed to casual mentions, namedrops and interviews -- to the subject, nor is seeking to cover up the lack by bludgeoning and filibustering, and revenge stunts against the nom, a good look. I concur with other editors that RespectCE needs to slow their roll dramatically if a trip to ANI and a potential block for WP:NOTHERE is to be avoided. Ravenswing 20:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to point out that most members of the National Academy of Medicine already have Wikipedia articles - it's not my fault he's already been namedropped across Wikipedia. As for my stubs, yes, I have written other biographies that I intend to expand in the future for Wiki Women in Red, but seeing as none are subject to attention for other editors of any kind/never been blanked, I've put them on the backburner for now (Striesand effect). If anyone blanked the article about Yevgeniya Dolinyuk or Agrafena Nilova I would drop everything and focus on those ones. And please keep in mind that the %-stubs-of-pages-created does not accuratly reflect overall contributions to Wikipedia like expanding existing stubs.--RespectCE (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    That would come off better had your contribution history demonstrated you'd significantly expanded more existing stubs than in creating single-sentence sub-stubs of your own. That being said, do you get that this extreme defensiveness, jumping on almost each comment anyone makes, is unacceptable? You do not own these articles, and claiming that actions taken "against" them "disrespect" you to the degree of compelling you to strike back just reinforces the impression that you are a poor fit for a collaborative, consensus encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. So far, the unanimous consensus (from other than yourself, of course) is that this subject does not meet notability standards, and the blowback from the Streisand effect you keep citing is that we're likely to closely examine your contribution history to see if your judgment is as badly wrong elsewhere. Ravenswing 05:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • I reserve the right to reply when people deeply insult my edit history. Positiveness of contributions is not just measured by the number of articles expanded, but how much content by bytes is added, and I just recently have significantly expanded the Cochlear Ltd article (returning info that a previous COI editor removed, BTW) and am now working on a mega-rewrite of the MED-EL article (which has also been butchered by COI sockpuppets to be a corporate puff piece). Please stop attacking me and making this personal. Every single article I've created will not remain a stub. I have never claimed ownership of articles. If people didn't try to make this about me so much I wouldn't be taking the time to reply to defend my character.--RespectCE (talk) 13:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      Sorry, but someone who responds to an AfD nomination with "Stop lying" and a revenge sockpuppet filing does not get to be huffy about charges that he is acting in bad faith. You made this very personal with your first response here, you compounded it by your bludgeoning, and your readiness to declare yourself insulted and disrespected compounds it further. Ravenswing 14:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      • Falsely accusing me of maliciously "doxxing" someone by publishing already public information in the Wikipedia article is a clear cut lie (writing a Wikipedia article using already published information is by definition not doxxing). Any reasonable person can understand that anyone would be enraged to be accused of that. Furthermore, the sockpuppet filing is not "revenge" for filing a deletion nomination, but an step taken to alert the proper authorities here that an account that just because active again but lacks basic understanding of wikipedia works (ex, posting on my userpage, not signing posts) is engaged in a remarkable similar editing pattern and identical pursuit to an IP that recently edit-warred in the same article and also lacked understanding of wikipedia protocals. The NOMINATOR made this very personal by throwing disgusting accusations at me first, and you continue to make this personal by insulting my edit history for writing stubs I haven't yet gotten to expanding (I am somewhat new here). Other commentators have been able to express their delete votes WITHOUT going ad hominem like you.--RespectCE (talk)

• Delete Judging how this person isn't really notable, how the creator of the article referred to her as a "controversial figure in deaf+Deaf community" in the page creation summary, as well as how they insulting her to her face, this seems to be a person that the creator dislikes and created this as an attack page disguised as a general article. Regardless of whether it possibly is or is not an attack page, I don't see how this person would be notable. The creator has claimed in this discussion that other articles of similar subjects exist, but maybe the case is that this article as well as said others shouldn't. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did NOT create this page as an attack page. There is nothing in the text that can be construed as that. I had no idea that she didn't want a wiki article at the time I published it - in fact I was certain that she would be delighted and asked her to donate a photo to Commons for it. I don't see how mentioning that someone faced a fair deal of difficulties in life but still excelled in school and landed a volunteer position in the Peace Corps is an attack. I was deeply angered by the repeat unilateral IP blanking of the page as it was completely disrespectful to my efforts as a wikipedia editor. And as a matter of general good practice, people who are concerned about their privacy are best off setting their social media account settings to "private" and not publishing their IP address via IP edits. And anyone who is active in editing articles about deaf/Deaf matters KNOWS that the manualism vs oralism debate is still alive and well, so anyone who makes statements strongly siding with "team manualism" or "team oralism" is going to be a subject of controversy.--RespectCE (talk) 23:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ravenswing, "This particular one is signally short of reliable, independent, third party sources that actually provide significant coverage -- as opposed to casual mentions, namedrops and interviews". No comment on the surrounding drama/ or motives of the nom.-KH-1 (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just out of curiosity - are you making that desicion soley based on the first few clickable link type supplemental sources in the article, or did you actually manage to track down all of the print sources and throuoghly read them in the short span of time this ADF has been up?--RespectCE (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Keep but stubbify (see comment below) Delete - I agree with others that, irrespective of the motivations or surrounding context, the subject seems not to meet [[[WP:GNG]]. If the article is to be kept, I would suggest the most productive next step in this discussion would be the identification of three independent, reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. That would better focus the notability discussion on specific sources, rather than the passing mentions currently cited in the article. Suriname0 (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reviewed the three provided sources. I was not able to access Audecibel online or identify any offline repository accessible to me; thus, I can't verify its contents either way. But, on the basis of the two other sources, this seems like a case where the subject is notable (WP:GNG is met, although with fairly weak sources; two were published while she was a child, and the other is a promotional profile with unclear editorial oversight) but the subject is not a public figure. Thus, extraneous information in the article should be removed, following the guidance to "include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." Based on the available sources, it seems a paragraph at most is supportable. And, from an editorial perspective, I agree with others suggestions that this non-public figure ought to be discussed in other articles rather than given a stand-alone article for which quality sources are minimally available. Finally, I'm including here an excerpt from Wired for Sound, which may be helpful to others because I found it difficult to track down. 7 paragraphs are included about the family and the author's first person experience meeting them. Here's a representative excerpt:

    The oldest child, Rachel, was born in 1987 with a severe-to-profound hearing loss, which became total by the time she was eighteen months old. .... Rachel’s speech was fairly clear, and she seemed to be well integrated socially with the hearing children I saw her playing with. Her mother told me she can chat on the phone with her friends with little difficulty. Rachel attends a regular school, in a class of hearing children, where the results of her language tests are age appropriate or better in all areas but vocabulary and auditory sequential memory.

    Suriname0 (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ravenswing's source analysis has me less convinced that keeping the article is a reasonable outcome. I think the merge proposed above as an WP:ATD is very reasonable. Suriname0 (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - 3 independent reliable sources with significant coverage as cited in the article: The Wired for Sound book (3 pages); Audecibel Volume 43 (3 pages), Moment Magazine (article).--RespectCE (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The Audecibel magazine source is not fully accessible through GBooks, but the preview for the one page cited in the article includes, "Six - year - old Rachel Chaikof of Atlanta, Georgia is Child of the Year for the 1994 campaign." Similarly, through GBooks, the Wired for Sound source appears to be a brief mention on one page, with her mother talking about her as a child. The Moment magazine source is a seven-graf article with multiple quotes from her at age 30, and her family is also discussed in the article. While there is some secondary context, this is only partial support for WP:BASIC notability. The WP:REFCLUTTER stacked at the end of each section makes it challenging to assess the significance of coverage in the sources, but it appears there are brief mentions, interviews/quotes, sometimes related to promotion of her family's nonprofit (e.g. (JTA, Wicked Local). In reviewing sources, I am not finding support for what appears to be the basic assertions of notability in the article, i.e. that she is an advocate (the section labeled advocacy in the article appears to be WP:PROMO for Cochlear Limited, an article that the creator of this article happens to have substantially contributed to, e.g. [2]), or that "she was hailed in oralist circles as a cochlear implant success story". Beccaynr (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr: I have no preferences for any CI company. In fact, I RETURNED information about Cochlear Limited violating anti-kickback laws that was removed by previous editors that obviously had COIs. I also wrote the article for Advanced Bionics, the main competitor of Cochlear Ltd, and some of the smaller CI companies like Nurotron which broke the monopoly Cochlear Ltd had in China. And as a matter of fact, I am currently working on a full rewrite of the article about MED-EL, the other "big three" cochlear implant company (The big three being Cochlear, Advanced Bionics, and MED-EL). I have also appealed on the internet to ask people to donate photos of CIs under free licenses permitted by Wikipedia, and it's quote unfortunate that we (Wikipedia) haven't gotten any good photos of the obsolete MED-EL and Advanced Bionics body-worn processors. My edits are in no way limited to things related to Cochlear Ltd and if you took a GOOD look at my edit history I'm sure you would realize that. Also, as far as I am aware, there is no rule requiring sources in Wikipedia articles to be fully available on the internet.--RespectCE (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I also put in the information about the 1995 Nucleus 22 recalls in the Cochlear Ltd article. (further evidence of my work being to provide thorough information about CI-related topics, not to puff any particular brand.--RespectCE (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. I just mega-expanded the MED-EL article, you can see it for yourself. I would write a wikipedia article about someone with a MED-EL implant if I could but since they have never had a monopoly (unlike another company, not naming names), there's quite a bit less people with them and therefore I don't know of anyone with one who is even half as famous as Chaikof. So there's that.--RespectCE (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" does not mean sources which namedrop the subject. It means that the source "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." This should not be so hard a notion to grasp. Ravenswing 03:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Over a dozen pages of content about her in the Walk in my Shoes book and full-length feature articles in Moment and Weekly are hardly just "namedropping". I'm patently insulted that you think I don't already know the difference, as I have already explained that the article contains "backbone" sources with large amounts of detailed information going through multiple pages (ie, print books) and "extras"/supplemental sources that might have an extra fact or two or an update.--RespectCE (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just added a citation to a Jewish Advocate December 2016 article that biographed her in detail. But I guess you'll shrug it off as just another "name drop".--RespectCE (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'll shrug it off as a weekly local paper, the same way your Walk In My Shoes book is from a self-published outfit: "After self-publishing her own novels, Jenny Hudson decided to start up Merrimack Media in 2008 to help authors get the editing, design, and promotional services they need to make their self-published books a success." These repeated attempts at pushing shoddy sources at us, combined with your combative behavior, has long since gotten tiresome. Classic case of the corollary to Ravenswing's First Law. Ravenswing 17:47, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know Merrimack Media was self-publishing, but there's absolutely no ban on using weekly regional publications (Boston isn't exactly bumblefuck Idaho). And I would appreciate you dropping YOUR combative, disrespectful, and hostile attitude. Oh, and I checked your article stats, and you seem to have published your fair share of stubs and start-length articles to, so I really think you should apologize your your past remarks regarding me. I don't know about you, but almost all my stubs are topics that match corresponding longer articles in multiple other languages, and I have every intention of finishing them once I get a chance to do another Library of Congress trip to view some of the publications I want to cite. So start showing me a little respect. We are all volunteers here, contributing our precious time to producing articles. Maybe you think spatting upon my contributions will drive me away, but it won't. In fact, in sharp contrast to me, your contributions over the past few days have almost EXCLUSIVELY been on this page, which shows that you are not willing to offer much to Wikipedia besides starting flamewars in AFDs and pouting on ANI boards.--RespectCE (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of my last twenty article creations (other than redirects, of course), only one is a short stub. Of your last twenty, fourteen are two sentences or less, including such informative articles as "Lidiya Pavlovna Ivanova (Russian: Лидия Павловна Иванова; 17 March [O.S. 4 March] 1915 — 18 May 1979) was a Soviet milkmaid foreman who was twice awarded the title Hero of Socialist Labour for record milk yields from her cows" and "Kseniya Kupriyanovna Petukhova (Russian: Ксения Куприяновна Петухова; 16 January [O.S. 3 January] 1909 — 28 August 1977) was a caretaker of calves on a kolkhoz who was twice awarded the title Hero of Socialist Labour for her work." (Otherwise, none of us are soothsayers, and can only go on your actions, instead of trying to divine your intent regarding why you'd create at one or two sentences when there are already extensive articles -- and several extensively sourced -- for the same on the Russian Wikipedia available to be mined.) I admit that otherwise I've had a light year; only around 500 of my nearly 30,000 mainspace edits have come in the last six months. Ravenswing 17:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I think the second prong of WP:N also applies, because this article appears constructed with poorly-sourced WP:INDISCRIMINATE detail, including a lot of WP:TMI personal medical information related to when she was a minor, which also raises WP:BLPPRIVACY concerns. There is also seemingly related WP:PROMO, both for cochlear implants generally and a specific company, as well as multiple sources promoting her family's nonprofit organization. In addition, I think WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE should also support deletion based on this discussion, because she appears to be a relatively unknown, non-public figure. Beccaynr (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not exactly private medical information from when she was a minor when she also put put that info in a youtube video when she was 20 (not a minor)--RespectCE (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact that birds have feathers and some birds can fly does not mean an ostrich will take flight. - Beccaynr (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Printed books and electronic magazines and newspapers AREN'T original research.--RespectCE (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Has anyone here even TRIED accessing all the print books cited before jumping to the conclusion that her media coverage is only "namedropping"? I can convert the citations to sfn format if it would help understand the depth of her media coverage.--RespectCE (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. I can't help but laugh over the fact that I am literally being personally attacked from opposite perspectives: some editors have accused me of creating this article as an "attack page" (bit laughable since I made a point of mentioning various honors the subject received) and from the other side it's been accused of being "promotional" because I mentioned the brand of implant (of course, I also mentioned it failing twice in a year) in question she has (which is publicly available information), mentioned the charity she family started to search for a cure for Usher 1F (hard to fathom anyone being opposed for creating a cure for a debilitating disease that causes poor balance AND blind-deafness), all because I expanded the article about the largest cochlear implant company (in the process of which, I added recall info that was not previously in the article and restored information about the company being fined for bribery that was removed by past editors). This is getting to the point of absurdity, with a huge bandwagon effect, of lazy editors jump the "delete" bandwagon before bothering to seek out the most important sources in the article!--RespectCE (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    You respond to each and every post here. Just state your case and let it go, this isn't a personal attack. We're here to judge the quality of the sources to see if the article is justified. You're very passionate about the subject, we understand. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    My link to the Pulling a rabbit out of a hat essay specifically notes that in good faith, an editor may synthesize information to support a conclusion not otherwise reported by independent and reliable secondary sources. For example, there do not appear to be sources referring to the subject as an icon, advocate, or famous - this appears to be a conclusion reached by connecting various sources that report details such as a promotional appearance on a poster as a child, a promotional speech at a corporate function, or being quoted while promoting her family's nonprofit organization.

    Stacking references at the end of each section, instead of citing each sentence to help show where the information is from and the depth of information from each source, also contributes to the appearance of synthesis. It is a further concern to describe the subject as 'controversial' and then seem to focus with undue weight on aspects of her childhood that may be considered controversial, particularly when more recent sources do not mention this part of her biography, and instead seem to focus on promoting her family's nonprofit organization. My point is that in an effort to create interesting and useful content for the encyclopedia, there appears to have been a misapplication of a policy, and if the synthesis is discounted, there appears to be insufficient support for an article at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2022 (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.