Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bot523 (talk | contribs) at 15:56, 14 November 2007 (BOT: Removing category from closed AfD debate). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 delete per a fairly strong consensus. krimpet⟲ 03:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Young (longevity claims researcher)

Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Previous AfD for this article under a different name:

This article was nominated for deletion back in August, and the AfD was closed as "no consensus". It seems to me that it has not improved much since then, and that the previous discussion may not have covered all the problems.

First, this article was created by its subject Ryoung122 (talk · contribs), who has continued to edit it since the AfD closed. I was drawn to the subject by the orphaned category he created for it, Category:Supercentenarian trackers, and by the subsequent correspondence with Ryoung122, which involved (inter alia) spamming irrelevant and badly formatted-links in large quantities. Those things are not relevant to a deletion decision, but the diffuse nature of the material prompted me to examine this article more closely, in particular the claims to notability.

I don't see that the references provided come anywhere close to establishing notability:

  1. http://www.grg.org/Adams/E.HTM lists Young as the validator of some supercetenarians. It's a primary source, irrelevant to notability
  2. http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwger/about/admin.html is a list of the Administration & Staff of the Gerontology Institute. It lists Young a Graduate Research Assistant, which is not a notable position, and as a primary source it's irrelevant to notability
  3. http://www.demogr.mpg.de/calendar/files/23312.3112487793-Workshop%20Program.pdf is simply a list of conference participants, and irrelevant to notability (most academics participate in lots of conferences)
  4. http://www.supercentenarian-research-foundation.org/organization.htm lists young as a memner of the committee of the Supercentenarian Research Foundation. Not a notable role, and another primary source
  5. http://www.grg.org/Adams/AA.HTM doesn't mention Young

The external links are little better:

  1. The first of the kinks to mention Young is the Yahoogroup which he runs, but that's not a WP:RS reliable source
  2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5293436.stm is an article about a supercentenarian, not about Young. Young is not mentioned until paragraph 11, and then with four sentences of quotes.
  3. http://www.globalaging.org/health/us/2006/longevityclues.htm offers substantive coverage of Young. It's a 1,0000-word article in a newspaper from his home state, about the work of Young and his colleague
  4. http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/rej.2005.8.274?cookieSet=1&journalCode=rej is a list of supercentenarians, which doesn't mention Young
  5. http://biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/content/full/59/6/B579/TA1 is a journal to which I don't have access, but is presumably to a paper written or co-authored by Young. Irrelevant to notability
  6. http://www.demografie.de/calendar/files/51736.8836975098-Workshop%20Program.pdf is a conference schedule which presented a paper by Young

And that's it. He's a 33-year-old graduate student who has given papers at conferences, which is non-notable. Otherwise he gets a few quotes in a BBC article and one more substantive article in his hometown's newspaper, and he claims to be a consultant to a few outside bodies (though we have no independent sources for those claims). That's perhaps slightly more than the norm for an academic, but it seems to me to fall well short of WP:BIO, which looks for such points as a "credible independent biography" or "Widespread coverage over time in the media such as the BBC, The Times or other reliable sources".

There has been three months since the last AfD, in which the subject himself has added references. If in that time even the article's subject hasn't found evidence to bring the article close to meeting WP:BIO's requirements, I think it's safe to conclude that the evidence probably doesn't exist. Delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above comments include several incorrect statements. However, User BHG decided to delete where I pointed out when her statements were not correct. Therefore I suggest you all check out the source links for yourself, and see who is telling the truth. Have a nice day.Ryoung122 21:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I reverted your editing of my nomination, and a further edit by you of the nomination was reverted by another editor. You have been repeated asked to follow WP:TPG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there is far more material out there about me than about Keeley Dorsey. Further, I also created aticles for my rivals as well. That says a lot.Ryoung122 13:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAX makes this irrelevant. ---- WebHamster 01:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The above user has already been involved in the Category:supercentenarian trackers debate and this nomination appears to be a conflict-of-interest motivation. I also note that the nominator has stated that she has no interest in the subject which makes the nomination biased. Further, it is traditional for the nominator NOT to vote in their own nomination. In response, I'm going to do the same thing:
  • Keep. There is only one Guinness World Records and only one 'Senior Consultant for Gerontology.' You can find me on page 2 of the 2007 or 2008 editions, as well as other parts of the book. A search for "Robert+Young+gerontology" returns 490,000 hits; EVERY ONE of the front-page hits is me. Not only that, not a single front-page hit is for a commercial products, but an educational or scientific one.

Further, the article originally started as a way to counter fictitious age claims, such as Mary Ramsey Wood. The original nominators nominated the article for deletion in response to an attempt by myself to get Mary Ramsey Wood's article to reflect the obvious truth that her age claim was not credible. After heated debate, it was eventually acknowledged that I was right and now the article reflects reality.

One of the main tenets of Wikipedia is that you can click on a 'wikilink' for 'more information.' Given that I am cross-referenced with several other articles, it stands to reason to have the information organized in a way that one can find out about similar cases from each other. Ironically, by linking these aricles, BHG (originally deleting the category 'Erdos numbers') found a link to 'supercentenarian trackers' as well. I do not believe that deletionists that go around deleting educational categories such as 'Erdos numbers' while leaving gobs of gratuitous information about not notable people like Keeley Dorsey or Sunnydale, California are really helping Wikipedia. One of the reasons Wikipedia has not found greater success is that it is remade in the image of the masses, instead of dealing with what is really important. What can be more important than resarch into the human life span, in an attempt to identify what limits us to a mere 122 years?Ryoung122 13:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryoung, with reality, you need to properly portray reality if you want any credibility. Note that the person who put this up for AFD the first time was not involved in the Wood article at all, whatsoever, not even a minor edit. Not even one word, character, or revision on the article or its talk page. Period. Aboutmovies 19:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User Kittybrewster is a frequent contributor to BHG's talk page:
Appears to be conflict-of-interest and vote-stacking. We see no analysis, rationale, or attempt to consider both points of view (at least, BHG did that). I can't see how you can claim 'fails' when I have already posted the proof. Apparently for some, this is a 'pissing contest' and not really related to an objective approach.Ryoung122 14:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes I am a fan of BHG. That led me here. Additionally I was irritated by the flood of protest, commenting and editing by Mr Young. Irrelevant to the point that this fails WP:BIO. In any event it is for the closing admin to decide the merits of the arguments. - Kittybrewster ☎ 16:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename the parenthetical part; clearly notable--many news stories. JJL 15:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable list keeper. The lists he keeps may be notable, the publications he keeps them for may be notable, that does not make him notable. ---- WebHamster 18:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and previous AFD, not enough WP:RS used as sources that have substantial coverage required under WP:BIO. Aboutmovies 18:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:
Precisely as I said, we see user: Aboutmovies started the Mary Ramsey Wood article:
(cur) (last) 00:11, 26 July 2007 Aboutmovies (Talk | contribs) (4,445 bytes) (created, feel free to expand with sourced information)
Which was a source of the prior debate. Hence, I stand by my comments and they are backed up by checking the facts.Ryoung122 21:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said I didn't start that article, the problem is you said above: "The original nominators nominated the article for deletion in response to an attempt by myself to get Mary Ramsey Wood's article to reflect the obvious truth that her age claim was not credible."
Thus though I was involved in the Wood article, nobody involved with the Wood article nominated this article for deletion. Errabee nominated (please remember that only one person nominates, the rest of the people are simply particpating in the debate) the article for deletion. So no, your comments are not backed up by the facts. Also, for the upteenth time, learn how to properly format your talk page comments, see WP:TALK for details or study how others particpate to figure it out. Aboutmovies 21:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep The article could certainly use some cleanup and some outside contributors, but crikey, how many sources do you need? It appears that nearly the first three pages of Google results that are returned for the search terms that Mr. Young used are about or refer to him. Just because the sources are not cited in the article (yet) does not mean the article is deletable. (See WP:PROBLEM.) I would agree with the suggestion that the page be renamed, perhaps to Robert Young (gerontology). I would also suggest to Mr. Young that he back off from editing his article for awhile and solicit the assistance of some outside editors. While it's not forbidden to edit an article about yourself, it's frowned upon to varying degrees as a conflict of interest. Personally, I have no problem with someone working on an article about themself or about something they're connected to, as long as they remain neutral and provide reliable sources for any statements or claims that are disputable. It's generally not a good idea to actually create an article about yourself as Mr. Young seems to have done, but what's done is done, and it actually doesn't seem that he's done a half bad job of keeping it/making it fairly neutral. I would also like to remind the COI police that additions of facts such as birthdates, places of employment, places of residence, names of spouses/children and the like that are added by the subject of an article are both acceptable to be added by the subject and do not typically require a source per WP:AUTO:
    "In clear-cut cases, it is permissible to edit pages connected to yourself. So, you can revert vandalism; but of course it has to be simple, obvious vandalism and not a content dispute. Similarly, you should feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself, such as marital status, current employer, place of birth, and so on. (Note it on the talk page.) Be prepared that if the fact has different interpretations, others will edit it."
I mention this for the sole reason that there seemed to be a dispute over the inclusion of the statement that Mr. Young is a researcher at GSU without a source, and then once a source was added to that effect, it was then poo-poohed as trivial. It seems that everyone here needs to review the core policies at work here, and use a little common sense. LaMenta3 18:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the nomination? I assessed all the sources for evidence of notability, which is the issue here, and of the GSU link I wrote "not a notable position, and as a primary source it's irrelevant to notability". References are needed to verify facts, but not all of them are releavnt to notabilty (see WP:NOTE). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oldest Georgian Woman Dies at 112

WLTX.com, SC - Oct 15, 2007 A memorial service was held Saturday in Pickens, SC Georgia State University gerontology researcher Robert Young says Christopher was the oldest documented ...

Hmmmn, not even a 'hometown' news source...72.158.38.41 01:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no link for that quote, so it's unverifiable; and it does not appear to be one of those listed in the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A link for the story appears here [1] (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 10/14/07): "The oldest documented Georgian, she was the seventh-oldest person in the U.S. and the 11th oldest person in the world, said Georgia State University gerontology researcher Robert Young of Atlanta." "Upon Mrs. Christopher's death, Besse Cooper of Monroe became Georgia's oldest resident at 111, Mr. Young said." In addition, I must disagree that things without links are unverifiable. The source is clearly given (WLTX.com). Enter that URL into your browser; the main page has a search option. I searched on Langston and the first hit was the story in question [2]. "Georgia State University gerontology researcher Robert Young says Christopher was the oldest documented Georgian. He says she was the seventh-oldest person in the country and the 11th oldest person in the world." "Young says her death means Besse Cooper of Monroe is now Georgia's oldest resident at 111. She was born on August 26th, 1896." JJL 04:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although renaming the title may be relevant. The GRG website officially lists him as "GRG Chief Claims Investigator" on http://grg.org/Adams/Tables.htm as well as grg.org. I think the problem is when you guys talk about 'nobility,' you refer to nobility on the Internet, such as through Google. While I think Robert is most notable for having a 1-of-a-kind job at Guinness, his name can be found on the Guinness books, rather than the official guinnessworldrecords.com site. So the question remains: can someone have nobility off of the Internet but have nobility through books? Robert has plenty of on-line "Internet" nobility on GRG pages and hundreds of news reports, particularly supercentenarian birthdays, but lacks the Internet nobility through an official Guinness site. Anyways, I don't think Wikipedia should be exclusive to sources on the Internet. I believe if there is a book out there, it can be used as a reference on Wikipedia even if the data of the book does not appear on the Internet. Neal 19:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Of course notability can be sourced from dead wood sources, many articles are sourced in such a way. Additionally the number of sources isn't necessarily an indicator either, it's the quality of the source that counts whether it be net related or via other means. As regards the 1-of-a-kind job, well that doesn't necessarily denote notability either. My uncle used to be the only rat catcher for the local council but I rather doubt he's entitled to an article based on that. Regardless of Young's job title at Guinness he is still only actually an editor when it comes down to it and the world is full of them. He's a researcher and list maker, that doesn't confer notability regardless of the subject he's researching and making lists of. ---- WebHamster 19:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm actually going to respond to these because it's not simply about 'being right' but about getting the story right. If you still feel the way you do, fine, but let's not have misperceptions, or, worse, deliberately false information. FIRST: there's a big difference between 'rat catcher for the local council' and in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet. There are other people who do nations such as Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, the UK, Australia, etc. Thus this is only a 'one-person job' because I'm at the top of the organizational pyramid.
Two, even with Guinness...they asked me to join the team, not the other way around. I am an independent consultant, not an 'editor'. That's why I'm called the 'Senior Consultant for Gerontology' in the 2007 and 2008 editions. The fact that when they were looking for someone for the job, they thought of me, says a lot. When the U.S. Social Security Administration wanted assistance with their supercentenarian study, they asked me. So did the Max Planck Institute and the New England Centenarian Study. I don't need to be here to justify any of this to anyone. Facts are facts. If you think that's not notable, fine. But develop some standards. Why is there an article on David Allen Lambert? Created an auto-biography using a sockpuppet. I, on the other hand, created one using my own ID. How about Keeley Dorsey? Two career touchdowns. Real notable.
Worse than that, however, is that Brown Haired-Girl put out a good argument for deletion, but much of it was based on misstatements and falsehoods. Some of the links she claimed didn't mention me, in fact did. The GSU article, while 'hometown,' was carried on a worldwide website. So much for that argument. In fact a search of all the 'supercentenarian' articles (scientific) on Academic Search Premier shows that I was involved in a majority of them. In some cases I was named in the title; in others you can find my name elsewhere.
So, if someone wants to 'delete', well vote the way you want. But when BHG claims there are no sources, when there are, then deletes sources as 'SPAM' which are clearly not, that is little more than a 'personal attack' and an abuse of power. For example, she states that this source http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/rej.2005.8.274?cookieSet=1&journalCode=rej doesn't mention me, but I see my name at least seven times, at least one of which lists me with the Social Security Administration, which BHG claims is 'unverifiable.' I could go on, but that would be 'spam' (by her definition). 72.158.38.41 02:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"In charge of"? "Collator of" would seem to be more appropriate based on the article. There doesn't appear to be any evidence produced that you actually medically treat these old folk, you appear to catalogue and/or debunk them then write it up in reports (lists?). Anyway, this appears to be degenerating faster than a nonegenarian with a viagra overdose, sooner or later you're going to blow a gasket or someone is going to end up defaming you either deliberately or accidentally, either way I don't want that to happen. I'd quit whilst you are ahead. Let people make up their own minds. And BTW, just have a quick read of WP:WAX before you make any more article comparisons. And I have already cast my 'vote'. ---- WebHamster 02:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: do we say that Scott Boras is not notable because he is an agent? Moreso, 'just an editor' seems quite ridiculous. I am in fact an organizer and creator, not simply an 'editor.' That is why I have positions in multiple organizations including the SRF, GRG, SSA, NECS, etc. When people wanted an 'expert' they turned to me, not the other way around:
I didn't say you were just an editor, I said you were a list maker too, so that covers the creating and organising aspects I would have thought. Also being an "expert" does not automatically confer notability either. The very basis on which an AFD runs means that it can't be a vendetta. It's a consensus of editors discussing the merits of a particular article. Some of those editors may have an axe to grind, some are independent, the fact of the matter is that the discussion is what eventually decides whether deletion is merited or not. An AFD nominations is NOT and instruction to delete, it's a request "do you folks think this article should be deleted or not?". Feel free to have as much conspiracy paranoia as you like at home but please keep it off WP, it doesn't serve any good and actually decreases the strength of your argument. Likewise disrupting AFD with long, irrelevant quotes does not help either. I have no axe to grind, I haven't edited your article in anyway, I don't know you, I don't know any of the other editors, though BHG has turned down a few of my CSD requests in the past. So stop insulting people and their motives. I read the article, I saw the citations, I made my decision based purely on that. In my view you do not meet the requirements for WP:BIO and/or WP:N. ---- WebHamster 22:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WebHamster is right. WP:NOTE says that "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail". Recording someone as an author of part of a publication doesn't pass that test. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This expert's qualifications are on the border of what we might consider notable, but I believe that AfD voters are allowed to take into account combative and self-promotional editing during the AfD itself, as well as violations of the conflict of interest guideline, which suggests you should not edit your own biography. (This AfD debate was noticed at WP:ANI, and not without reason). A little humility goes a long way. By a set of standards in Wikipedia whereby most full professors at major universities would be notable, someone this early in his career would not normally be considered notable in a scientific field unless he had made unusual discoveries. I don't believe this has been shown. EdJohnston 01:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Without wishing to be harsh to the article's subject, I have a few questions:
What exactly does Robert Young do that makes him notable as far as wikipedia is concerned? The claim for notability is on the grounds that he specialises in debunking (his word) claims of extreme age. The information used to test these claims is, presumably, held in official, publicly accessible archives of historical records such as census returns, birth, marriages and death records, tax returns, wills, land and property transactions as well as unofficial sources such as letters, gazetteers, directories, etc. The collating and analysis of this sort of information (much of which is now available on-line) should be all in a day's work for someone with a history degree such as RY. It seems to me that, apart from the use to which the data is being put, his role as a "longevity claims researcher" does not differ much from any other person using the same records to research their family tree. In fact, the list of supercentenarians provided at the site linked to in reference 5 (here) seems to indicate that three documents is considered sufficient proof for the "three stars" list (although it is probably easier to prove a case than to disprove one).
The article is silent about how RY came to be the Guinness Book of Records' claims investigator. Did they approach him or was it the other way round? I doubt that the few world records that the book covers in his specialism would require a full time appointment, so I guess that it is a consultancy role. What does he do with the rest of his time - presumably a large part of it is taken up with his post-graduate studies.
Setting aside the issue of notability, the article is somewhat short of the usual facts found in biographies. What is RY's background? In the UK, 32 is a late age to achieve a first degree, what did he do before university? What is the subject of his post-graduate studies?
Regarding the need for this article to be provided as a means of linking together articles on debunked claims, doesn't the {{longevity}} template and the Longevity claims and Longevity myths articles do that better?--DavidCane 03:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (reply to David Cane). First, a check of the World's Oldest People message archive finds over 100 messages/month:

P.S. I added only those elements in the 'autobiography' that were pertinent to the 'world's oldest person' discussion. Why did I not graduate until 32? That story is far more interesting...you wouldn't believe me if I told you, so why bother?Ryoung122 11:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm finding it increasingly difficult to believe any of the claims made by Robert Young. In a comment above made from an IP address, Young says "there's a big difference between 'rat catcher for the local council' and in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet".
    If someone who claims to be a researcher thinks that they are "in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet", I have to seriously question whether anything they write can be trusted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. So, what you're really saying is that if my position is accurate, then it sounds notable to you, but you don't believe it is true, despite thousands of reference citations. What matters is not what the evidence says, but what you believe.Ryoung122 10:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. This is why this issue is so much larger than simply 'keep' or 'delete'. With all due respect, it seems what really gets people like BHG is that the truth is too hard to accept. If you don't believe me, go pick up a hardcover copy of Guinness World Records, see page 2. Last I checked 'WORLD' records meant 'entire planet.' That means anyone, from anywhere, can submit a record. It find it ironic that, the more evidence presented, the more people like BHG return to emotional, unvalidated arguments such as 'I find it increasingly hard to believe.' What they'd really like is a humble submission to 'Wiki-authority'. I've already offered a truce but I can see that BHG has little or no intention of operating in this matter in a fair manner. If you really were a 'fair-minded' administrator, how could you make comments like that above? How could you compare a 'local rat catcher' to a respected position such as "in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet"?72.158.38.41 10:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to say that we "can't handle the truth"? What you either can't or won't realise is that BHG's comment is saying that someone who is as prone to hyperbole as you are is not a good candidate for writing encyclopaedic articles, at least not one on yourself. You also seem to be confusing the generally understood definition of notability with the wikipedia definition. Obviously people who offer you work deem you to be notable which is fair enough, but WP's criteria is different, we aren't offering you a job. According to the criteria laid down in WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:PROF you don't meet the requirements. It's not a personal slight and I rather doubt prospective employers will write to the Wikimedia Foundation for a reference any time soon. Don't you realise that your demands, protestations and, quite bluntly, whining is not doing your case much good at all. You cannot demand your way into Wikipedia, it just doesn't work like that. Rightly or wrongly, attitudes like that will pull people's shutters down and will shift consensus away from you. Show some modesty and humility, this is not a job interview panel. ---- WebHamster 12:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Robert, plaese look again at the claim you are making. Carefully.
    There is not the slightest shred of evidence from any source that that is true for you claim to be "in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet". It might be true that you are in charge of an editorial team at a particular publishing house which checks facts about longevity from all over the planet, but that's a very different matter. The reason I say that I have difficulty believing anything you claim is that you do not so far seem to understand the difference between the incredibly broad claim you make and the the significance of editorial fact-checking function. When I was an undergraduate, this was one of the crucial issues hammered into us in the first term of the first year: to be scrupulously careful that every assertion was referenced and that no claim exceeded the scope of the evidence. It remained a major theme throughout all my time with academia that hyping the significance of a point was a grievious sin for anyone seeking academic credibility, and we were regularly pointed to the academic controversies surrounding those who let their standards slip. Maybe such rigour has gone out of fashion in the few centuries since I was an undergrad, but I doubt it … and as Aboutmovies wrote above "you need to properly portray reality if you want any credibility". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is checkuser appropriate for 72.158.38.41 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) of Atlanta? - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is me, I didn't login because if I had been blocked, I wanted to get the message out. I think the message is more important than the 'administrative punishment' one may dole out for daring to stand up to such an incessant and unfair barrage. The article as written is linked to the appropriate criteria. I doubt if the Mary Ramsey Wood would stand up to the same level of scrutiny. LOCAL newspaper citations? Please. Also, I was featured on the FRONT PAGE of the WALL STREET JOURNAL (Feb 2004):

http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/03-05/03-27-05/d06he017.htm

Is that the Atlanta Journal-Constitution? Looks like Massachusetts to me. Not only was it in the Wall Street Journal but carried in many other papers. So, you can say what you want but I respectfully disagree with interpretations otherwise. The standard is 'notable', not 'famous'. Have a nice day.72.158.38.41 16:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight, you deliberately tried to circumvent a possible block on you so you could get out the message of how important you are? And the message that you're notable is more important than the rules of Wikipedia? I'm sorry but you keep on demonstrating BHG's point about the sort of editor you are. ---- WebHamster 17:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, that's an article from SouthCoastToday.com which says it's from page D6 of The Standard-Times which says it's from the Wall Street Journal. If we ignore or verify the source, though, it doesn't help. It does not "feature" Young. It features claims of longevity, discusses GRG and quotes Young. From the article, I find the following: Young is "GRG's senior claims investigator" and he's "a 30-year-old former Census worker". That certainly isn't "significant coverage", so it doesn't satisfy general notability. I don't see it satisfying WP:PROF or WP:BIO either. None of the other inclusion guidelines apply. Young is not notable. - Mdbrownmsw 17:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This line of discussion is pointless. No, there's no need to resort to administrative punishments – and RYoung's behavior as a Wikipedia editor is not relevant to the matter at hand. Except insofar as the strenuous and lengthy arguments of a directly interested party disrupt the natural flow of discussion. Robert, it's my opinion that common sense dictates that you should sit back and let the community discuss this matter without your interference. Since you don't seem to agree, I'm not sure what I can do but sit back and shake my head. I definitely don't see the value of pursuing this on an administrative level, but I am disappointed by your attempt to advance your own reputation at the expense of valuable WP editor time. -Pete 22:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.I note the above user was not only involved in the Mary Wood dispute, but he has continued even up to today the very same dispute. Thus I note that we have two users, AboutMovies and Peteforsyth, operating from a COI/sour grapes mode (mad that they lost the dispute). Further, I find it highly disturbing to phrase this a waste of WP editor time...what about MY time? If you don't have time for this, then you shouldn't be here.Ryoung122 22:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Lost the dispute" - ??! Robert, your confrontational tone is the only thing that ever made that seem like a dispute. Several of us objected to some of your earlier edits, which lacked through citation/foundation/explanation. You and others responded well to that (albeit with a whole lot of accompanying bluster), and the resulting article is a dramatic improvement over what it was before you came along. If there was any dispute, the quality of the article was the winner, and inaccuracy and vagueness were the losers. At the time, you acknowledged that collaboration had resulted in a better article. I agreed with you. What makes you change your mind now? -Pete 23:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:BIO. Since when have graduate students been considered notable? - Galloglass 12:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Bill Gates dropped out of college, didn't even make it to graduate school. That I'm a graduate student is irrelevant, as the basis for a 'notability' claim is extensive media coverage over a period of time (not a one-time event, not a local paper). Look, I've started other articles for biographies with less than this.72.158.38.41 16:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Robert Young if press coverage was the basis of your claim then I am afraid it fails completely. As has been set out by BHG above, the coverage is minimal to say the least and does not come near, let alone approach that needed under WP:N. I do have to ask at this point, have you actually read the criteria? Btw I notice one of your claims for inclusion is that you is that you are mentioned as a contributor in the Guinness Book of Records. Well I was actually a record holder in the book for many years but that doesn't mean I meet WP:N any more than you do. - Galloglass 16:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Gosh, I almost want to say it's a WP:SNOWBALL case. User:Ryoung122 is a very worthwhile contributor to Wikipedia. He helped sort out some confusion on Mary Ramsey Wood, where the historical record incorrectly identified her as having lived to 120 yrs. of age. I salute Robert's contribution to the encyclopedia. But how could there possibly be a need for an encyclopedia article on this person? What article, book, etc. has been written about him? This is not intended as a personal slight, but there's just no case to be made. The article should be deleted, its value to the encyclopedia is nil. I hope he does not take this as a personal slight, as his editing has been a very positive contribution. If the article needs to be kept, I have about 25 wikignomes I'd like to make articles for. -Pete 12:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established by reliable sources and no indication that such will change in the near future. - Mdbrownmsw 14:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've heard of him outside wikipedia.--Michael C. Price talk 14:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've heard of LOTS of people outside of wikipedia. Very very few of them are however notable. - Galloglass 17:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and userfy. Robert has done a lot of good research about other notable people, but that doesn't make him notable in and of himself. The information that's in the article now might make an interesting userpage for him here at Wikipedia, but not worthy of it's own article. --Maelwys 14:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We're discussing the notability of the subject of the articl, not his personal views on himself. As with everyone else, what he says about how important he is is evaluated not on his own view of it, but objectively. He is the chief subject investigator of the organisation best known to the public for evaluating such things in a non-academic sort of way, as shown by that organisation's publications, which are reliable enough to demonstrate who works for them. The main subject editor for a major subject for Gallup is notable, as would be the obit editor for the NYTimes or the London Times. People with such major responsibility for the most notable publications are notable. Any excessively broad claims he makes here are the usual PR talk, and can safely be ignored. One or two people above seem to be taking them personally. That he also oontributes to WP is nothing against him or against his notability, though it isn't his main source of notability. The article as it presently stands is objective. We don't give preference to people who work her, but avoidance of COI requires that we dont hold it against them either. DGG (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a contributor to a small section of the GBWR is hardly a calling card for notability regardless of how many issues are sold. There was a section about old age before Young came along and there doesn't appear to be an entry for his predecessor, at least not one I can find. They seemed to manage quite well without him then. Likewise, all the references given are invariably about the subject he deals in rather than about him per se. This is trivial at the very least and insubstantial at best.---- WebHamster 17:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I don't see anything in WP:BIO which defines the notability of a researcher by the notability of their employer or publication; that seems to me to be a definition of notability based more on importance, which is explicitly rejected by WP:BIO. Even if the publications are clearly notable, as in this case, notability is not inherited. I'm also surprised by the suggestion that Young is the "main subject editor for a major subject for Gallup": I can find no mention of supercentenarians on Gallup's website, and Young is not listed on Gallup's list of senior scientists, and I see no evidence that this "a major subject for gallup". A google search for "Robert Young" site:gallup.comthrows up only one trivial result which goes no indication as to which of many possible Robert Youngs it means. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakish keep per DGG. His individual specialism is perhaps best called quasi-academic, and the usual academic criteria don't work well here. Johnbod 15:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This material actually is in interest to a quite few of us. The technical issues BrownHairedGirl addresses (i. e. 'badly formatted links') should be solved the normal Wikipedia way, not by deletion. Celvin11 17:53, 8 November 2007 (CET) — Celvin11 (talk • This template must be substituted.
Being of interest is not a criteria for inclusion. ---- WebHamster 17:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But 'notably enough' surely is a criteria. Not being listed at Gallup Senior Scientists List cannot be a solid argument for deletion, in my view. Have you checked other Wikipedia articles in this respect ? There might be quite a number of articles on people not listed at that particular list. Celvin11 18:34 8 November 2007 (CET) This template must be substituted.
The issue is rather different to the way you frame it: it's whether the article on Young has established notability in accordance with the guidelines (WP:NOTE and WP:PROF), which involve looking at the evidence and discussing whether it meets the required standardds. My point wrt to Gallup is that I see no evidence either that supercentenarians are "a major subject for Gallup" or that Gallup regards Young as a significant person in their organisation, so his claimed role in Gallup does not help to establish notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails to pass the bar of notability for academic work set by WP:PROF, I see the strongest residual claims to notability being his his association with the Guinness Book and Gallup. I'm in agreement with WebHamster & BHG's responses to DGG, and don't see parenthetical involvement with those organizations as amounting to encyclopedic notability. Pete.Hurd 17:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - With all due respect to the subject, I haven't seen any evidence that at this point he passes either WP:PROF or WP:PEOPLE, the latter of which would require a "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". While his work is mentioned in several places, I have yet to see any specific evidence that the subject himself has been discussed at any great length in any of them, which would seem to make it fail on the latter. If and when such coverage exists, however, that would change things. John Carter 18:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:Prof (quote) criteria # 1. The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources. The question then is : can this or cannot this be said about Robert Young ? Pete Hurd's (and Warlordjohncarter's) interpretation of WP:Prof might be too narrow. Celvin11 19:21 8 November 2007 (CET) —Preceding comment was added at 18:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
True. However, I don't see any such independent sources on the page specifically indicated that he is regarded as a significant expert. John Carter 16:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, John Carter for your comments. I very much welcome a balanced discussion. In my view, some of the entries seem unfortunately far too overloaded with a negative energy. Some of this might be simply due to lack of knowledge.

SineBot seems wrongly to label me of creating a 'Single-purpose-account'. I registered with en.wikipedia 3 years ago (on 8 Nov 2004). At that time I of course had no idea about this discussion coming up. It is completely true that I ve contributed to en.wikipedia just a few times. I ve however been far more active at no.wikipedia. I participate here because this topic is one of my fields of interest.

You dont see enough documentation to place Young as a significant expert in this area. Do you know the longevity research field well ? What about being a consultant to Guinness Book of Records then. Clearly they ve a solid history of consulting expert in various fields, dont they ? Guinness surely is an independent source by objective criteria.

I am, since four years ago involved with a Norwegian project where we re detecting and verifying the oldest people who have lived here. Mr Robert Young is well known to us here as a leading international expert in this specific field. Celvin11 04:55 11 November 2007 (CET) —Preceding comment was added at 03:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep He seems quite notable for this AFD furore, let alone his status as an authority on old people. And the academic snobbery in this debate is no reason to delete. Colonel Warden 14:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Causing an AFD argument doesn't begin to create notability.--Prosfilaes 23:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanispamcruft and COI problems aside, fails the basic tests of notability WP:PROF or WP:PEOPLE(and "this AFD furore" [sic] is evidence of some flaws in our system, not evidence of notability). --Orange Mike 15:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yes, he knows his stuff and is on the whole an excellent contributor, but I can't see any thing that makes him pass the basic bar of notability. While the self-plugging pushing of the yahoo group can be annoying, it is the lack of notability and significant coverage in reliable independent sources that sway my opinion . - fchd 17:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not seeing where this meets the standards of notability. He's got the whole average professor issues; he's done a few things of some interest, but nothing that's made people care about him independent of what he's done (i.e. the independent references notability demands).--Prosfilaes 23:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with a wry smile at the comment above - absolutely correct. Yes, when this field becomes mainstream, i.e. when there is someone other than the subject (and editor, I believe) involved, then we can indeed celebrate that trailblazing. But not until then. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent sources, no independent sources, no independent sources. ~ trialsanderrors 19:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the original proposer and the article's subject seems to have a vendetta going on and I question the motives behind this CFD. Might it not be better to abort this vote and let a more clearly neutral editor handle it? --Martin Wisse 12:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - There is a vendetta being waged Martin but if you check carefully, its not by the proposer of this AfD, but rather its subject who has breached every wikipedia guideline imaginable in his conduct during this debate. He has hounded and harassed the proposer on multiple talk pages, has taken Conflict of Interest to new heights never seen before as well as hounding many of those who have posted for a Delete in this discussion. I'm sure this debate, which has been conducted fairly and properly by everyone apart from its subject will come to its proper end when an uninvolved admin takes a view of all the evidence on this page and comes to a decision based on it. Incidentally and apart from this debate, I hope Ryoung122's deplorable conduct during it will receive some action. Such levels of harassment, bullying and intimidation by this individual should not go un-noted. Galloglass 12:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally BHG doesn't do vendettas. - Kittybrewster ☎ 12:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments in the previous AFD. His position at Guiness World Records is notable, and the fact that he seems to be the media's go-to person for quotes on stories of a particular kind also suggests notability. JulesH 18:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It should be noted that JulesH is one of those canvassed for support by Ryoung122. - Galloglass 18:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

  • Delete for failing WP:PROF (and BIO/PEOPLE, as well as WP:N more generally). I don't think the sources mentioned above satisfy the guidelines. --Bfigura (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "senior consultant on gerontology for Guinness World Records". Senior to whom and to how many? 1) Like it or not some of your charges are notable, you are not. 2) You have a raging case of the COIs so please recuse yourself and let us get on with it. You are doing yourself (and WP) more harm than good with your responses. All you are effectively doing is reiterating the same arguments. What is it they say about a possible definition of madness? "When someone keeps doing the same thing over and over and then expects the end result to be different". Please see WP:TEND in relation to this discussion. ---- WebHamster 22:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Robert, your disagreement that an article needs to be "about" the subject to establish notability is far out of step with the consensus about what constitutes notability for Wikipedia. That consensus, of course, is subject to change; but you need to take that up at WP:N or similar. Simply asserting something contrary to one of the most foundational WP guidelines, in a specific case, and one in which you have a stake, is unconvincing. -Pete 23:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see how that qualifies as a non-trivial mention. Notability requires "...sources address the subject directly in detail...".Now, if a review article in a respected Gerontology journal made the statement, maybe then, since they'd be qualified to make such a distinction. But a mention made in passing by a random local newspaper doesn't meet the required threshold in my opinion. --Bfigura (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable per WP:PROF, WP:BIO, just not notable and the main proponent that is busy editwaring here has a massive conflict of interests. Also there are many and more arguments above, which I will endorse. This is a sloppy, poor article about a non-notable person whose is growing to become a notable editwarrior. Not only should his edits be scrutinised, he probably should be warned for failing to WP:AGF and to lighten up as well. Shot info 23:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: above vote appears to be COI retaliation for David Horrobin edit. The article, as written, appears just fine. However, Shot info insists on a complete re-write.Ryoung122 23:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: RY, have you actually taken the time to read and analyze WP:COI? I have many times and am a proponent of a wide interpretation of the policy to include POV pushing. But I and the policy both state that it applies to mainspace editing. To simplify that for you, this is not the mainspace. The article about you is the mainspace. The article on Microsoft is in the mainspace, the talk page to Microsoft is not. If there is a “Wikipedia:” or “User;” or “Talk:” at the beginning of title it is not in the mainspace. So there is no COI for any editor here debating that has had a conflict with you. Now, you did see the specific mention in COI about autobiographies right? Aboutmovies 06:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not sure what to make of the jumble of random statements and facts posted by RY in response to my earlier comments, but it has not shifted me from my view that his specialism is making lists of the very old. Whether these lists are of use to members of the Gerontological community is open to question. The subject may have a degree of notability within the small community of researches collating lists of the very old and possibly also in the wider Gerontological community, but even this does not appear to have been demonstrated and if it had, as per WP:LOCALFAME, this would still not necessarily translate into notability in the general sense or meet the criteria for notability on Wikipedia:
  1. RY does not appear to meet any of the six proposed tests of notability for an academic:
    1. considered significant expert in his field by independent sources - fail, no evidence of this provided.
    2. considered an important figure by independent academics in his field - fail, no evidence of this provided.
    3. publication of significant or well known academic work - fail, no such work shown to have been published.
    4. collective body of work is significant and well known - fail, no such body of work shown to exist.
    5. recipient or nominee for a significant award - fail, no significant award has been made or nominated.
  2. RY does not appear to meet the standard of Wikipedia:Notability - "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." --DavidCane 23:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've ever seen a better example of irony. ---- WebHamster 00:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I was thinking along the same lines WebHamster. - Galloglass 00:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment RY seems to be accusing me of jealousy because I don't have an article of my own. I have no such jealousy, nor do I desire my own article:

  1. What evidence is there of notability as an academic by independent sources? Appearing in the staff list for the department at GSU does not make him notable; being listed as a researcher by the GBoWR does not make him notable.
  2. What evidence is there that fellow academics consider him important?
  3. Where is this significant body of published work? See examination of RY's links below.
  4. What significant award has he received? He's listed on the GSU website here as receiving the "Outstanding Undergraduate Student Award", 2007 from his own department, but that is hardly significant. What other awards has he been honoured with.

Taking the links that he has provided:

  • "Anti-Aging Medicine: The Hype and the Reality" (for which the table of contents can be found here) does not list RY as a contributor.
  • "Aging: The Reality: Demography of Human Supercentenarians" lists RY as one of eight co-authors of an article titled "Survival of Parents and Siblings of Supercentenarians" (see here for an abstract).
  • The next, for which the link should be http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/rej.2006.9.503, is a smarter version of the "Validated Supercentenarian Cases Aged 114 and Above" list that is already linked from the RY article. This list is produced by the GRG for which RY claims to be the senior researcher and simple lists him as a source. It is not independent.
  • The next, which presumably is supposed to be a link to the latest edition (October 2007) of the Journals of Gerontology (table of contents here, index by author here) does not list an article authored or co-authored or contributed to by RY. is just another link to the Journal of Gerontology website where a search for Robert Young in the authors list shows his only contribution to this publication to be the co-author credit on the ""Survival of Parents and Siblings of Supercentenarians" article already given above.
  • The next two provide alternative links to "The Journal of the American Geriatrics Society" vol. 54 number 8 (August 2006). This lists RY as one of seven co-authors of an article titled "Characteristics of 32 Supercentenarians".
  • The link to the radio article (in which RY speaks for about a minute on how he tracks down the Supercentenarians and checks their ages) refers to him as the Senior Investigator for the GRG. The radio article is focused mainly on one of the Supercentenarians and a Dr Coles not RY.

Co-authoring two articles, being a source for part of a list of data on supercentenarians, being interviewed briefly about his data acquisition techniques does not make RY notable. Nor does being cited as a source in newspapers and on the BBC website make him notable. --DavidCane 01:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I note that RY is not the corresponding author on either of those papers, on one he's 6th of 8 authors (Thomas Perls is 1st and corresponding author), on the other, the authorship is attributed to "LOS ANGELES GERONTOLOGY RESEARCH GROUP (LA-GRG)" and L. Stephen Coles is corresponding author. These really fail to attribute any encylopedic notability to RY. Pete.Hurd 04:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Peteforsyth above. Non-notable and unencyclopaedic. Articles on individuals such as Mr Young is not what Wikipedia is about. A short bio on his user page will suffice. —Moondyne 01:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. But if he'll long enough he might become notable ;-]. --Brewcrewer 05:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per BHG's detailed rationale. Stu ’Bout ye! 16:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete failure to submit evidence of notability. Just a researcher. MLA 16:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Is notable in an emerging field. Give it a chance. I am disappointed to see yet another gerontology and supercentenarian related article being attacked, and some of the "delete" comments on this page have the sour taste of personal grievance rather than a real interest in wikipedia. Cjeales 16:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjeales (talk • contribs) This template must be substituted.
  • Keep I say go for it. Czolgolz 17:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It should be noted that Czolgolz is one of several people whose talk page Robert Young has just spent the last half an hour posting a rather biased and inaccurate summation of these proceedings on. - Galloglass 17:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and on some article talk pages as well - wrapped up in requests to respond to two other AFDs as well. While I wouldn't have much of a problem with Mr Young canvassing to save the other pages, to canvass to save a page saluting him strikes me of a gigantic conflict of interest, and a huge side-order of conceit and self-importance as well. - fchd 17:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - Misrepresented notability, lack of Reliable sources. --Rocksanddirt 21:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence of notability can be established via reliable independent sources. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 21:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all of the above. This is the most weird debate I have seen here yet. Subject NN. As far as I am concerned, this is a snowball. --Crusio 22:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not stupid. The Wiki-masses have spoken. Be it as it may, I disagree with the 'snowball' interpretation. First and foremost, it seems that comments made in my favor were removed or collapsed, evidence withheld, etc. Read WP:BIO again. It says:
  • Comment Hey pal, assume some good faith here! I read all that stuff before voting. I agree completely with the collapsing approach, I have never seen anybody giving such long, rambling, repetitive arguments in an AfD. Change your tactics, this is counterproductive, I assure you! --Crusio 12:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Ryoung: Robert, you have pointed many times to the guidance at WP:COI, which warns that editors "should take great care not to edit in a manner that may be perceived as controversial, promotional or agenda-driven" and to "avoid, or exercise great caution when ... participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors". I have just checked, and this discussion currently includes over 26KB of contributions by you, which renders as over 4,000 words. I have never seen such flagrant abuse of COI in an AfD debate, and you are lucky not have had admin action taken against you. But having been allowed to ride roughshod over the COI guidelines and in pursuit of your campaign of self-promotion, please spare us the claims that you have been denied an opportunity to make your case.
    Addituonally, it now turns out that you have been blatantly canvassing this AfD ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]), which I will take to WP:ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I do note that some of those persons had already 'voted' for deletion. I don't see anything wrong with making a case. If someone decides against, well that's what happens. I note the extreme hypocrisy in that many 'good' editors are involved in 'canvassing'. If someone posts a message to you that the 'math vote' isn't going the way expected, well that's still canvassing.

Further, 4,000+ words or not, consider:

A. Wikipedia is NOT PAPER

B. Since the arguments have been collapsed, it's almost as if they were not there.

Further, I wouldn't be continuing to make responses if additional issues have not been raised, but since they have, continued responses are needed.72.158.38.41 19:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, Wikipedia is not paper. However, that's not really an excuse to break up others' comments and insert 4,000 word essays into an AfD. It's perfectly okay to make a case, but making it again and again and again is somewhat disruptive. Collapsing seems to be justified in this case. (After all, the closing admin can and should take all comments into consideration, collapsed or not). --Bfigura (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is not a vote it says at the top, but it's still about a deletion nevertheless, is it not? Extremely sexy 13:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It's a discussion about a potential deletion, yes. All the 'not a majority vote' means is that the opinion that gets the most votes doesn't necessarily take effect, it's the opinion that has the strongest arguments. --Maelwys 13:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Young frequently refers to his being used as an expert when the press needs a quote etc. As this doesn't appear to have been pointed out I thought I should. Journalists are human beings (though some may argue that point) and as such they have a propensity for taking the easy option whenever possible. So when an article comes up about an old person and an expert, but ultimately unimportant but space-filling, quote is required which do you think they are going to do? Spend time and money researching? Or do you think they'd just look in their rolodex for someone they (or one of their colleagues/competitors) have used before for the same thing? News media tend to be repeat clients of "sound-bite experts" because it's easy, not because they are necessary notable. ---- WebHamster 13:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's pretty cool to be a leader in an "emerging field." Once the field actually emerges, then perhaps we might reconsider this article. Rklawton 16:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep N-O-T-A-B-L-E ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia'']] 20:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - B-Y W-H-A-T C-R-I-T-E-R-I-A ? (sorry, couldn't resist!) - fchd 20:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable outside of Wikipedia. Should get suitable recognition and treatment for disruptive self-promotion/Wikipedia editing. --JWSchmidt 03:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A researcher in a pretty small area. Fails the "average professor" test (as in, NOT above average in scale, importance, etc) and little sign of actual real-world notice impact (in the world at large or in technical/professional circles, and no, being some journalists' Rolodexes doesn't count). The blatant conflict of interest ain't helping, as do some of the more bogus arguments (when counting Google hits, you gotta use quotation marks: using "Robert Young"+"Guinness Book" knocks down the inflated total to 227). --Calton | Talk 13:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Robert Young is the leader of an international network of volunteers called the World’s Oldest People (http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/ ). I have been impressed with the detective work that these individuals do in identifying and validating supercentenarians. They have to deal with typographical errors and misspelling of names in records to determine if an alleged supercentenarian is legitimate. The careful research of Robert Young and his World’s Oldest People network provides much of the data for the lists of supercentenarians on the Gerontology Research Group website (www.grg.org ). In order to be certain of the legitimacy of claims to extreme age they require at least three documents that support the claim. These documents may include a birth certificate, a baptismal certificate, census records, and a marriage certificate to show a woman’s name change. I am personally acquainted with Robert Young, and I can vouch for his dedication to present accurate data on supercentenarians. The demographic research that Robert and others do is essential for scientific investigation of aging as demonstrated by supercentenarians. His accomplishments in the demography of supercentenarians warrant retaining his brief biography on Wikipedia.

StanPrimmer 01:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

User:StanPrimmer has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Ryoung122. —Moondyne 02:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to en.wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRG (quote) "Stan Primmer (founder of the Supercentenarian Research Foundation)" Member list of Scientific Advisory Board is found here http://www.supercentenarian-research-foundation.org/SAB.htm Celvin11 03:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reply to StanPrimmer's comment: Being a competent researcher is not a the basis on which wikipedia assesses notability (see [WP:BIO]]), because verifying the quality of his work would be original research. Wikipedia is a tertiary work, and as such it requires secondary sources.
    There is a further problem in that Young's habit here of exaggerating his own role and significnce undermines the credibility of his repeated claims about his work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:14, 12 November 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Young_(longevity_claims_researcher)&oldid=171450110"