Talk:Sigrid Fry-Revere

Notability

Almost all of the content for this page was contributed by an account for which the sole contribution was to this article. Secondly, the article photo was contributed by an account presumably with the same surname as the article subject. Fails criteria: Self-promotion and publicity. Also fails notability check. 99.164.12.187 (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

A guess is that the photographer was a family member, which makes the photo OK. There were two accounts that pretty much created and edited only this, but that was back in 2008 and 2015, so no longer relevant. David notMD (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Possible sources

Not sure if this is the right place to put this. I'm not tech-savvy:

I did a search on Google and there are 148,000 entries for my name. I found the following articles in the first seven pages of entries. These are not my articles or articles in which I am simply cited or quoted. They are more extensive discussions of my work or my life. I'm sure if I continued scrolling through the Google results, I would find many more similar secondary sources.

The search above was for "Sigrid Fry-Revere newspapers" when I just search my name I get over a million hits on Google.

Articles that talk about me:

1. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-organ-donor-expenses/new-fund-eases-expenses-for-organ-donors-idUKKBN0L22IP20150129
2. https://www.ozy.com/news-and-politics/the-country-where-selling-your-organs-is-legit/70282/
3. https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/sigrid-fry-revere/the-kidney-sellers/
4. https://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/kidney-sellers-journey-discovery-iran
5. https://philpeople.org/profiles/hojjat-soofi
6. https://www.thisamericanlife.org/580/transcript
7. https://researchers.mq.edu.au/en/publications/iranian-kidney-market-in-limbo-a-commentary-on-the-ambiguous-less
8. https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/world/2016/08/25/iran-kidneys-sale/89371302/
9. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncprheum0649
10. https://www.yourconroenews.com/neighborhood/moco/opinion/article/A-privatized-world-is-a-better-world-9280334.php
11. https://www.denverpost.com/2016/08/25/iran-payment-for-kidney-donors/
12. https://ethiquetransplantation.com/publications/
13. https://docksci.com/a-closer-look-at-the-iranian-model-of-kidney-transplantation_5a91386ed64ab21d3d54e5a7.html
14. https://jasn.asnjournals.org/content/30/8/1349
15. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x78dlxh
16. https://www.deccanchronicle.com/lifestyle/health-and-wellbeing/250816/a-unique-system-in-iran-is-allowing-payments-for-kidney-donors.html
17. Research guide mentions my work: https://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/resources/search-resources?page=11&issue%5B0%5D=154&f%5B0%5D=sm_field_issues%3Anode%3A154
18. Biography pages: https://peoplepill. com/people/sigrid-fry-revere
19. https://emu.edu/now/news/2015/bioethicist-and-living-donor-advocate-sigrid-fry-revere-challenges-the-current-organ-donor-system-with-questions-about-why-irans-system-is-more-responsible-and-ethical/
20. https://it.qiq.wiki/wiki/Sigrid_Fry-Revere
21. Thanking me for the contributions to his work file:///Users/AristotlesPride/Downloads/21139-Article%20Text-29835-1-10-20160426%20(1).pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Integrity1010 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Just at a glance, some of these are mirrors of Wikipedia (sites that copy Wikipedia articles), some are unreliable, some do not mention you except in passing, and one... appears to be a file on someone's computer? Not being tech-savvy is understandable; maybe you can find someone who is tech-savvy, have them read our guideline on WP:SOURCES, and together create a short list (the usual recommended number is 3) of the best sources available. Post that list here, and someone is much more likely to be willing to spend their free time reading, assessing, and integrating information from those sources into the article. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 20:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Having looked through your page, it seems that you need to include external references for the beginning sections of your article. Any material that is possible to verify, must be verified. Wikipedia's guidelines state that all verifiable information must include external references. For example, your university career should be referenced to an external source so that there is no doubt the information is correct. Perhaps you could go through the article with someone who has made a page before to get some support? Catrionapeat (talk) 09:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Evaluation of the 21 links offered by Integrity1010

Numbered same as above. (I reformatted Integrity1010's list to have numbers to make it easier to refer to them.) I checked all 21 links and made very brief notations below. I arrived here in response to reading an early-December 2021 discussion on the Teahouse noticeboard on the subject of whether or not the subject of this article was notable or not, especially concerning the hatnote on notability.

1. Contributes towards notability. Might be an interview, but well-written.
2. An interview, a primary source. Useful for some background information. Doesn't contribute towards notability.
3. Book review for The Kidney Sellers by Sigrid Fry-Revere
4. Another book review, but even more detailed.
5. A 2016 academic commentary article [1] commenting on Fry-Revere's 2014 paper
6. A This American Life radio show transcript and audio; interview.
7. Duplicate of #5.
8. Article (from original AP News article). Brief mention of Fry-Revere, but introduced as "an expert on the program".
9. Journal article that not only cites Fry-Revere, but mentions her in particular in a medical-ethics framework.
10. A typical John Stossel rant (?) on the subject of organ donation and ethics. Mentions Fry-Revere in particular.
11. Another republish of AP News article from #8 above. Scratch.
12. A list of links to articles on transplants, which leads to an academic/journal review of Fry-Revere's book "The Kidney Sellers" (abstract pdf).
13. Looks like some gibberish copypasta from somewhere else. Perhaps from https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uajb20.
14. Article in Journal of the American Society of Nephrology mentions Fry-Revere and other in the acknowledgements " for providing important reviews and insight."
15. A link to a [allegedly] free download (I didn't try it) of the book "The Kidney Sellers". Would be a primary source; doesn't contribute towards notability.
16. Another republish of AP News article from #8 above. Scratch.
17. Some search results on Center for HIV Law and Policy's website. Not useful.
18. Useless. Peoplepill is copypasta of Wikipedia.
19. Covers the subject as a preliminary to a seminar SFR would give at Eastern Mennonite University. Ends with basic bio information (primary source) but the article covers more than just a press-release type of announcement.
20. A copy of the Wikipedia article. Useless.
21. Document is not attached. Useless.

I'm going to add to the above list my own quick research:

• Google Scholar search results. 214 results for "sigrid fry revere" without 'citations' selected (257 with). It looks like over 30 have the name in the author line. Many of the others have the name in the text (discussing the work of SFR, not just citing it).
• PubMed lists 18 journal publications authored by SFR from 1990-2020.
• WorldCat has several entries, looks like 4 books and 4 articles.
• A google site search of NYTimes.com gave some interesting results; I don't think NYTimes lets just anyone write opinion articles. A different set of results on LATimes.com.

My analysis: This isn't a simple WP:NACADEMICS or WP:NAUTHOR, but a blending of several of these special types of notability. If I weigh them as a whole, I believe she passes notability. We have several non-trivial book reviews (3, 4 & 12); some non-trivial coverage in articles (1, 8, 10 & 19), several interviews (2 & 6). Certainly the book would qualify for a standalone article under WP:NBOOK criteria #1 due to the non-trivial (quite lengthy, actually) book reviews (4 & 12). Anyway, if I weigh them as a whole, I believe she would qualify as wiki-notable.

Platonk (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Desired Addition

Hi, I am the person in this page. I have a request to help improve the page. I am the founder of the American Living Organ Donor Fund. This organization was one of the most important things in my career, but it is not mentioned on the page. I created the Fund after my research in Iran, Book, and TEDMED. I left the organization for health reasons and, after that, the VP took over and put in the information on the Fund's website that he was the founder with my help. He was not the founder. I was, and I wrote him into the founding documents as the VP. I authored the incorporation and the 501c3 documents. Unfortunately, when I left, I gave the organization all my records per their requeest. I thought it was the right thing to do. I no longer have the original applications, but they must be publically available. I incorporated the ALODF in Virginia in Jan. 2015 and the 501c3 status was approved a month later -- I believe Feb. 18, 2015. Mike Mittleman was a business school graduate whom I included in my efforts because he promised to help with fundraising. He didn't found the organization. He didn't have any of the decades of background leading up to its creation -- He came to me after my TEDMED and asked to help. Thank you for helping out on these issues. My son, was born with kidney cancer -- he died at age 26 -- that is what began this whole saga -- the bioethics concentration on kidney issues, etc. Mike was a kidney recipient from his mother -- he had no background in medical ethics or the law -- I'm the one who had all the history and skill. I feel cheated that the ALODF now claims and it is all over Google that he was the founder. Thank you for reading this and I hope someoen can help. Sigrid-Fry-Revere ~2026-60791-1 (talk) 12:01, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Note -- The American Living Organ Donor Fund when it was first created was the only non-profit in the country that exclusively represented living organ donors. ALL others were there to help people who needed organs, even if their name implied they were there to help donors. I saw this a major conflict of interest. We represented ONLY the donors and their interests, thereby avoiding the conflict of interest that all the other organizations in the US suffered from -- namely they were really only helping donors SO THEY COULD DONATE. We were helping donors make the right decisions for themselves, even if that meant not donating. We also provided health information, resources, financial and legal information and much more AND we never helped anyone who came to us in search of an organ. That was not our mission -- our mission was doing what was best for donors. You can see how important that was for me if you read this article: ~2026-60791-1 (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

https://www.medstarhealth.org/-/media/project/mho/medstar/pdf/mwhc-journal-of-hospital-ethics/johe_v5n1.pdf ~2026-60791-1 (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2026 (UTC)