Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maddy Dychtwald

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 keep. There is consensus that this needs improvement rather than deletion. However, even those editors !voting to keep have expressed serious concerns with the content, and if issues with poor sourcing and promotionalism are not speedily addressed, an argument based on WP:TNT would be persuasive. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maddy Dychtwald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non notable, WP:ROTM businesswoman. Fails WP:BIO. Source analysis of this permalink version follows

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Timtrent
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://agewave.com/who-we-are/the-team/	Own site	own site	OWn site	✘ No
https://www.forbes.com/sites/blakemorgan/2020/03/05/50-leading-female-futurists/?sh=4df5b7868c90	Forbes is independent	TGHis is a marketing style puffery list	Passing mention in the extended list. Also ran!	✘ No
https://www.wsj.com/articles/5-top-wealth-management-posts-of-2017-from-the-experts-blog-1515441871?tesla=y	WSJ is inde0endent	These are blog posts	? Behind a paywall	✘ No
https://www.esalen.org/press-release/ken-and-maddy-dychtwald-receive-the-2016-esalen-prize-for-advancing-human-potential-of-aging-population		?	Full press release, by them about her	? Unknown
Torres, Blanca (April 16, 2006). "Redefining what getting older means; Consultant and author specializes in getting businesses in touch with the baby boom generation". Contra Costa Times.	?	?	?	? Unknown
https://www.newonline.org	?	?	not mentioned	✘ No
https://www.newonline.org	own site	own site	Buy My Book	✘ No
https://maddydychtwald.com/books-and-blogs/gideons-dream/	own site	own site	Buy My Mook	✘ No
https://www.grandmagazine.com		?	not mentioned	✘ No
https://goatmilkstuff.com	?	Sales site	not mentioned	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I used Newspapers.com through the WP:TWL and found these.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]}

Though I only went back to 1999. There was some stuff earlier than that and I also didn't check if there were non-newspaper things in ProQuest. Silverseren^C 04:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I guess i'll actually vote. The sources I found above and the indication of there being quite a bit more was convincing enough to me that Dychtwald is notable in this subject of aging. Silverseren^C 04:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, this is a resume and it doesn't explain what "Age Wave" even is. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you look at any of the sources I listed above, @力:? Silverseren^C 02:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at one, and it didn't explain what AgeWave is. If you can do so, please do so in the article. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't an article on Age Wave, this is an article on Maddy Dychtwald. Also, notability is not related to the state of the article. Besides, this source does explain what it is. Silverseren^C 02:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's try that again what is Age Wave? User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh wow, so someone removed all the reliably sourced coverage so the article could then be nominated for deletion because all the sources showing notability had been disappeared? That's sketchy. The article definitely needs to be shortened, but there's definitely reliable sources in there now showcasing notability. Anyways, as the article now shows and the source I gave before says, Age Wave is "a research and consulting firm established to “guide Fortune 500 companies and government groups in product/service development for boomers and mature adults.”". Basically a consulting firm for designing products for the elderly. Silverseren^C 02:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Which specific sources demonstrate notability? And does "consulting firm" mean anything beyond "this is a DBA Dychtwald and her husband use when talking to reporters"? User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Since we usually go with the rule of three on AfDs, I'll do with these three: one, two, and three. Which are all about the books she's written and her work. And I have no idea regarding the consulting firm. I don't think Age Wave is a major contributor to her notability, it's the things she's written that has, which have gotten a significant amount of coverage. Silverseren^C 19:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep User talk:Silver seren User:力 User:Eddie891 To expand on the above discussion, I am concerned that you have not examined the article, its sources, or revision history prior to asserting these redundant criticisms, User:力. Dychtwald has written for multiple international mainstream news outlets, such as the Huffington Post and Wall Street Journal, in addition to her book authorship and research study partnerships with the likes of Merrill Lynch which have been widely covered and referenced by mainstream media outlets and other secondary sources. She has also appeared for discussion and interviews Fox Business television as well as NPR and CBS Radio, among others. All of which are clearly mentioned and cited in the article. Further, related to the issues we have now been forced to discuss herein because of the following users' actions, I am in the process of compiling and organizing the evidence and argument to raise claims of harassment and WP:HOUNDING through the proper Wikipedia channels against users User:Timtrent and User:Justlettersandnumbers, and likely User:Theroadislong as well, for the their abuse of their Wikipedia privileges. This Maddy Dychtwald article is one of several articles on which they have appeared to have worked in unison with an M.O. of reverting, on a broad blanket basis, all edits made by paid contributors on articles, without regard to the merit of the content. They are clearly imposing their own apparent disdain and malcontent for paid contributions and instituting these reversions in what can only be described by their actions as bad faith -- Justlettersandnumbers "go-to" claim cited to in these blanket reversions is “Rv paid editor contributions, we can’t allow WP:deceptive advertising anywhere in the project, whether disclosed or not” which is very clearly a work-around bad faith assertion to implement their motivated goal of removing paid contributor content, which they cannot directly do and cite to as the reason for their conduct as it is obviously against Wikipedia's policies to remove content solely because it is inputted by a paid contributor, which, further, these individuals clearly know because one is a seasoned AfC reviewer and the other is an admin and VRT member - quite disgraceful conduct given their experience and stature on the platform. After they revert an article and remove much of its content, these users then promptly (usually within minutes) propose the articles for deletion once they have wiped the article of its substance that demonstrated notability. For example, the Source Assessment Table added above by Timtrent, as you will be able to see comparing the time stamps here to the article's revision history, was added to this thread at the end of a 70-minute time period in which Justlettersandnumbers wiped most of the content from the article via their "revert" tactics, coveniently followed exactly 40 minutes later by Timtrent adding the Notability tag (adding just the above chart to the article talk page with their cherrypicked sources to criticize for notability purposes), then followed exactly 30 minutes after that with Timtrent proposing the article for deletion and adding the above chart. During this process/scheme, these users have repeatedly added issue-raising tags (such as Paid contributions and Notability) on multiple articles without starting a discussion on the articles' talk pages to support or discuss their claimed tags as required by Wikipedia's policies. Interested users and editors can find other examples of similar harassing and hounding conduct by Theroadislong and Justlettersandnumbers on Charley Hughlett (both users) and Jayde Riviere (just Justlettersandnumbers). They also appear to have potentially implemented this scheme for article deletion on Maddy Dychtwald's husband's page, Ken Dychtwald. Although it is already disclosed on these articles' talk pages as well as my own, for the sake of transparency, I will again disclose that I am a paid contributor on these articles. To that end, I am not opposed to criticism and good faith, constructive revisions and/or supplementations to my work - this is Wikipedia after all - but this persecutory witch hunt is frankly repulsive, a waste of everyone's time and energy, and quite unfortunate. Thank you. Wiki Page Polisher (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: After a massive restoration of previously excised material (I make no comment on the excision or the restoration, I just note the fact of each) the article now has 155 references. That is WP:BOMBARD. IT has rendered the source analysis (above) obsolete. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not WP:BOMBARD, which I suspect that you know but are asserting anyway in furtherance of personal motives because, based on your veteran status on Wikipedia, you must certainly be aware that total quantity of references in an article alone is not an element of bombard/cite overkill. Over 1/3 of the 155 references are citations for Dychtwald's work product - which, in this circumstance, I would assert is not used in this article in the manner that the spirit of Prong 3 of Bombard ("Citations to work that the article's subject produced") is intended to curb because these references merely directly support and establish those facts and are not leveraged to establish Notability as Notability is already well-established by the other content and references included in the article. Further, most sentences have less than two cited references, and many of those sentences with more than one reference include concise compilations of multiple facts (e.g. one-sentence lists), requiring separate references to establish different facts/elements of such sentences. I also suspect that if these references were not included as references for these facts, the facts would then be conveniently tagged, highlighted, and the information deleted due to the lack of citations. Quite interesting that there appears to be the cliche "always something" and "playing both sides of the fence" critical reception going on here. Wiki Page Polisher (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Their work itself can only be a reference that adds value to WP:BIO in specific circumstances. Let me try to explain. If they manufactured vacuum cleaners, the cleaners would be their work. A vacuum cleaner could not be a reference for them, simply because it is the product they make. So it is with research, writings, etc. However, a review of their work by others tends to be a review of them and their methods, so is a reference. Others will judge. Not you nor I. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Once you strip out their own work or work for hire or work by close associates, etc. you aren't left with much except passing mentions, etc. There does not appear to be enough source material from independent sources to pass the very low bar at WP:GNG. --Jayron32 17:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jayron32: The sources I listed above aren't passing mentions. Did you look at them? Silverseren^C 17:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm perfectly fine with demolishing the article and having a much shorter one using only the actual source coverage, like those I listed above. The article is definitely promotional at the moment and anything sourced to a primary source should be removed. Silverseren^C 18:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and trim dramatically, per Silverseren and the three specific sources that they identified. Cullen328 (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• There is so much trash in here, it's hard to figure out what's what. I think I lean toward keeping it, because there is some coverage of the books--but man this needs more culling, even after I got done with the blatantly promotional "look how often the subject is mentioned on TV" sections. Those long sections on the books need to be cut drastically, for instance. Then again, Jayron32 may be right--it's all really thin, and there's stuff in there (I suspect this is common in this field) that looks like real sourcing, but is in fact just product placement. Look at this: oh Yahoo posts something about her study! yeah except that this content actually comes from Edward Jones, which commissioned and published the study. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Drmies: - you may be better off starting with this diff and adding anything back which is helpful. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:力, I'd cut 80% of the lead of that version, just for starters... Drmies (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've struck my delete vote and am simply neutral now. I largely agree with Drmies and Cullen. Once you cut through the multiple layers of crap, there is probably enough coverage of her books (in particular Cycles, per Silver seren's sources) to have an article. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but take a scalpel (more like a machete) to the article. Absurd over-reliance on self sources to name drop Fortune 500 companies and overly detailed discussion of work that is largely self cited. If reliable sources don't care, why should(how can) we? Slywriter (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2021 (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.