Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Chaikof

Rachel Chaikof

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

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)

Speedy keep for the following reasons:

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. 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. 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. 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.

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)

• 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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The books I cited are not written by her. While the Scientific American and WashPo articles were a passing mention, many others were not - 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)

• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
  • 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)