Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hearing (person)

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 merge to Deaf culture with proper sourcing. Sources that may make the content wp:verifiable are available here and on the article talk page.

There is no consensus to delete the content outright or keep the content standalone. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing (person)[edit]

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

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

Unsourced article that serves no purpose. All people are "hearing persons" unless they are deaf, there is no such term to refer to people that have normal hearing as "hearing persons". We don't have articles on "seeing people", "walking people", or "talking people". Rusf10 (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You probably could find sources if you looked for them; the academic discourse on disability and especially deafness is weird. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire. "someone whose sense of hearing is at the medical norm" is a made-up definition. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable topic that is studied at depth in deaf studies. Studies abound on hearing persons and their interactions with those who are deaf, e.g.: 1. Efficiency of a hearing person learning sign language vocabulary from media versus a teacher, 2. Chasing the mythical ten percent: Parental hearing status of deaf and hard of hearing students in the United States, 3. Deaf Parents and Their Hearing Children, 4. Cerebral organization for language in deaf and hearing subjects: Biological constraints and effects of experience, 5. Participation in a Global Hearing Culture: Hearing Mothers’ Translations of Their Childrens’ Deafworlds, 6. Deaf Community Culture components and its relation to Hearing culture. The hearing culture is nearly alien to deaf culture, and doesn't make use of coherent visual communication, and studies of the hearing from a deaf perspective are significant.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The deaf and hearing divide is different from most other categories (e.g. blind / seeing), as deaf people have their own languages (Sign languages which are totally distinct from the verbal languages of the countries their are based in) and as a result a separate, sometimes closed, culture. This is very different from, say the blind, as while Braille exists it is essentially a font that renders the verbal language. Sign languages have their own distinct written forms (SignWriting, si5s) and the language itself is separate from the regional verbal language (e.g. American Sign Language, Auslan, and British Sign Language are not mutually intelligible).--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A hearing person is a person who can hear. Is this a simple description or is this some specially recognized category in the deaf community or academia? I don't see anything in the articles you've cited that suggests the latter is true. Also, I don't see what your last comment has to do with the topic at hand. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Non-signing hearing cultures (perhaps this BBC piece on the effect of the hearing on the deaf) are distinctly different from deaf cultures. Being able to hear is not a simple description here, as the consequence is that non-signing hearing people use a different medium of communication (voice as oppose to visual) and have different languages and cultures. Hearing people, and their cultures, are the subject of significant study by deaf cultures and the wider deaf studies.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'All people are "hearing persons" unless they are deaf'. Right, just like all people are men (unless they are women), all people are adults (unless they are children), and all people are white (unless they are some other race). That is a ridiculous argument. Being the unmarked term does not render a category beyond consideration. Added: Most likely merge to Deaf culture, but it's possible that it could be expanded to an article. What is there at present is an essay without cited sources. A quick search found some sources, which I have listed on the article's talk page. It's not clear whether this topic is notable in and of itself, beyond consideration of Deaf culture, but it is possible. In any case, I would argue that the page be kept in some form, either expanded in its own right or within Deaf culture. Cnilep (talk) 07:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC); amended 08:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Baby hands that move to the rhythm of language: hearing babies acquiring sign languages babble silently on the hands for instance studies hearing babies, contrasting hearing babies that were exposed to speech ("speech exposed") to those who were exposed to sign ("sign exposed"). The "sign exposed" hearing babies exhibited "babbling" behavior with their hands (2.5Hz vs. 1Hz for linguistic activity with hands).--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is a ridiculous argument. No, it's a solid argument and you just made a bunch of false comparisons. all people are men (unless they are women) its roughly 50-50 all people are adults (unless they are children) 25% of the world's population are children all people are white (unless they are some other race) Most of the world population isn't white. But, almost all people can hear, making this article and your defense of it ridiculous.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that's not a valid argument, but academia definitely wouldn't see it that way. Since we have articles for cissexual and endosex, I see no reason not to have this article, at least as an explanation of an academic concept. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like Cnilep, I find the nom's argument bizarre. The unmarked ("normal") member of a conceptual opposition doesn't automatically become non-notable just because it's unmarked. This has nothing to do with the relative proportions. – Uanfala (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete because it's a valid encyclopedic topic, and sources have already been brought forward. I have no opinion on whether the topic is best treated in an article of its own or as part of another article. – Uanfala (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Deaf culture per Cnilep's argument. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep. Subject is definitely notable as a term among the deaf community. Erinius (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is an unsourced essay-like article, at best it could be a paragraph or two at Deaf culture - with references to suitable sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Deaf culture with redirect. It is a reasonable search term, but IMHO doesn't need to be a stand-alone article. --Slashme (talk) 16:24, 25 April 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.