Talk:Maddy Dychtwald

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maddy Dychtwald. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111017045726/http://www.agewave.com/RetirementTippingPoint.pdf to http://www.agewave.com/RetirementTippingPoint.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120510111639/http://www.wfs.org/node/342 to http://www.wfs.org/node/342

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Puffery
"She has been named by Forbes as one of the "50 leading female futurists"", is really unimportant, not notable. It's a marketing thing to make Forbes look more important Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 23:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Reference analysis
Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 23:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Clean up
I started to remove primary sourced promotional content, but there is so much, that it might be better to start again with a stub? Theroadislong (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, . I have already twice removed the grossly promotional paid-editor content dumped here with this edit. I was reverted first by without explanation, and then by  because apparently I "... can't revert all contributions to an article just because they're from a paid contributor". I disagree; we not only can but absolutely should revert paid-editor edits in mainspace, as such editors " ... are very strongly discouraged from directly editing affected articles, but should post content proposals on the talk pages of existing articles". Reversion is a common, perhaps the most common, form of discouragement, and the only really effective one available to us. Allowing a paid editor to post blocks of promotional paid content (or indeed restoring such content after it has been removed) in a page also raises serious concerns about covert or deceptive advertising, which is illegal in the United States, where our servers are. In spite of the valiant efforts already made to clean up this mess, I propose a revert to this revision as the best way forward here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Justlettersandnumbers, User:Timtrent - Yes. That version of 6 September is a stub that appears free of promotional crud.  An RFC to roll the article back to that version seems like a good idea.  If no one else rolls a different ball, I will submit an RFC to roll it back to that version.  The advantage to an RFC is that it keeps the target from moving.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Robert McClenon. I hadn't thought about it at the time, but I was subconsciously asking for your skill in dispute resolution when I asked you to give thought to this article and the circumstances surrounding it.
 * An RFC seems to me to involve the greatest possible number of wholly impartial editors amongst those who will contribute. At the end we will get either an acceptable, article or a route no article, each conclusion based on policy. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 20:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * An RfC seems like a waste of time. Just stub the article. Use the reliable secondary sources and cut out all of the primary ones. Silver  seren C 20:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That looks like an eminently suitable starting point and would save a great deal of time and effort, what do think User:Timtrent? Theroadislong (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Justlettersandnumbers @Theroadislong I am not sure there is sufficient genuine material here for a stub. I have also been ploughing my way through the promotional ordure here and and finding it heavy going. I support attempting a stub, but what of Dychtwald is notable?  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 15:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I noted the AfD was closed stating that TNT woudl be a persuasive argument. But that will likely fail Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 15:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * One of the issues is that the article features Dychtwald's publications, but not what is said about her. Removing those might leave us with a stub. I'm hesitant to make such sweeping changes without at least a minor consensus, which is why I've been flagging many of the useless references Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 16:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just quickly: I don't see that anyone needs to worry about notability here for a while; if after the page has been cleaned up there's little indication of notability then someone could try a new AfD, but only after a reasonable interval has passed. And yes, we should establish consensus before reverting to the version I propose – WP:BOLD has been tried and (for reasons that I still don't really understand) failed. It might be an idea to invite comment from the editors who participated in the AfD. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I'm now standing too close to the article to make a meaningful contribution myself. I'm inclined to agree with the suggestion of inviting comments. Independent of that thought of yours I think @Robert McClenon is uninvolved with any discussions surrounding it. I value their opinions and have asked them to take a look (on their talk page), and offer unbiased thoughts here. I've pinged them here obviously, but that is redundant. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 16:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have told User:Timtrent that I have looked at the article and the AFD once, and will look at it again within 36 hours (which is now about 33 hours). One comment is that the AFD was badly flawed because the article was swirling due to edit-warring of its content.  One possibility would be to ask Vanamonde93 to Relist it; I am still thinking about that.  There were two types of editors who were adding the excessive content, good-faith editors who didn't want content removed during an AFD or didn't want content removed, and flacks, which makes it hard to tell them apart.  My first thought is that a multi-part RFC might be in order, asking whether to get rid of (or stub down) each of the sections of the article.  I will be back.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Dychtwald is the co-founder of Age Wave
There are zero independent sources in the article that discuss this so I see no reason to even mention it, it isn't a notable company and nobody apart from Dychtwald has reported on it? Theroadislong (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Plus her spouse seems to write about her. Those references are primary sources, potentially self published Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 18:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Age wave" is a name they seem to have made up for the well-known and intensively studied phenomenon of population ageing; also the name of a company through which they market ... I dunno, but something, I imagine. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Here's an independent, reliable source for the claim that she co-founded Age Wave with her husband. Silver  seren C 19:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources for future use
Whether the article is stubified or whatever is decided to clean up the promotional material, here's the actual secondary sourcing that I found that can be used for building a proper article.

The majority of her actually notable coverage is about her work as an author, so the article should focus on that and not...whatever other nonsense is there right now. Silver seren C 19:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Rolling Back to 6 September version
Should the biography of a living person of Maddy Dychtwald be rolled back to the version of 6 September 2021? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The version of 6 September is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maddy_Dychtwald&oldid=1042729184

Please enter Yes or No in the Survey with a brief statement. Back-and-forth discussion may be conducted in the Threaded Discussion.

Survey

 * Yes, per my comments in the section above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes though all mention of Age Wave could be removed. Theroadislong (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes It's not like the old version won't still be there in the history to look through for anything that does have a decent source and importance to bring to the current shortened version. Or to find claims that might be searched for on if source coverage exists or not (Robert Reich mentioned her book, it claims?) Silver  seren C 19:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes because it is a better place to start than the current version. It will then need to be examined with care (I have not examined this vewrsion in detail yet) after the outcome of this RFC Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 19:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes - The majority of the additions are from primary sources; it would take longer to clean up the current version of the article than it would take to look in the edit history and add back in info that is reliably sourced. - Whisperjanes (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes as proposer. This will be consistent with the recommendation to stub it down, and much of what will be thrown away will be by flacks anyway.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, reluctantly. I don't think that all contributions to an article should be reverted just because they were paid for. That being said, Wiki Page Polisher wrote a totally unbalanced article, and should propose changes on the talk page before editing this article directly. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

 * , thank you for setting this rolling (I don't believe it was necessary in this case, but that's beside the point). If and only if you think it appropriate, would you kindly ping or notify those editors who participated in the AfD but have not edited this page since then? Some quite strong opinions were expressed, they might wish to comment. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Robert McClenon I concur with @Justlettersandnumbers on this. I believe it cannot be seen as canvassing since it will be a simple invitation to comment outside the hotter environment of a deletion discussion. I will also leave this to your discretion.  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 19:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

"Her projections are backed by Robert Reich, professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, who predicts that the gap could close at the professional level as early as 2020."

Huh, she was mentioned by Robert Reich and apparently she interviewed him as one of the people discussed in the book in question. Anyways, here's another source discussing her work. I did say I hadn't gone through ProQuest sources, just Newspapers.com ones. And even then only back to a certain year. So, there's plenty more sources out there on her, I'm sure. Silver seren C 19:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I suggested this exact action in the AFD. But somehow we now need an RFC? There's too much hostility from other editors for me to be interested in fixing this. User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 17:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You all can fix Age wave as well. User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 17:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I say just delete that one. Silver  seren C 17:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hostility only tends to appear when folk have a non-policy based axe to grind. To edit Wiklipedia well we do need thick skins. I care, but "not that much" and that is the trick to it. Please do not let anyone;s hostility ever discourage you from any policy based action. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 19:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Moving on after the rollback
The rollback has taken us to a stable version, still with problems, many of which have now been flagged, some of which have been handled. That still leaves us with an article that fails to assert and verify notability. How long do we leave it for interested parties to seek to enhance it to assert and verify notability before suggesting once more that be excised? Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 17:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We add these in as the sources presented in the AfD that represent notability and replace the primary or unreliable sources in the article.
 * What Cycles Mean For Business
 * Life is unpredictable, age is irrelevant in 'Cycles'
 * Choice, the opiate of the people
 * Women's Gains Improve Lives of Everybody
 * Author says it is turning into a women's world
 * Book teaches that change never ends
 * Women who retire early face risk of missing out
 * Retire early? Not the boomers
 * And there's more proper reliable sources than just these out there. Silver  seren C 17:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Silver seren Thank you for the timely reminder. Without pushing this task onto you, are you content to edit the article to incorporate the good referencing such as will seek to protect the article from the deletion it appears vulnerable to at present? Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 18:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, though it might take me a couple days (or I might complete it all at once if I have sudden free time, who knows), since I've got a number of different article responsibilities at the moment to work on. Silver  seren C 18:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Silver seren I'm glad you are happy to take it on. Thank you. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 18:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)