Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actuarial escape velocity


 * 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   redirect to Indefinite lifespan. Protonk (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Actuarial escape velocity

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not a notable theory or thing that's been mentioned much in books, news or academia. Sticky Parkin 18:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Delete Book reviews are not peer reviewed, regardless of the journal. Basing the verifiability of this "theory" on a single book review does not make it notable. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The cited source is a lengthy book review in a peer-reviewed journal, so it is clearly a verifiable, notable theory. --Gene_poole (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Actually said article said: "I term this rate of reduction of age-specific mortality risk ‘actuarial escape velocity’ (AEV)" In other words, the author made up the term and it only seems to be backed by two other scientist (according to the article). In other words, I would consider this a science variation of a neologism. - Mgm|(talk) 19:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: It doesn't matter if the theory is supported by 1 scientist or 1000 scientists; if it appears in a peer reviewed journal it cannot be anything other than verifiable and notable. Were this not so, it would simply not have been published. --Gene_poole (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Nearly 1000 Google search results says otherwise. And nobody said anything about book reviews being peer reviewed; the books that are reveiwed in peer-reviewed publications are generally found there because the publisher believes that the subject will be considered relevant and noteworthy by the journal's professional readership - not because that's the ideal place to promote crackpot theories. --Gene_poole (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A bog standard google search means nothing as anyone can write anything on a blog, sales site etc. Over a thousand really isn't much on a google search.  Try google news, books and scholar, which actually list reliable sources, and you will see it's hardly mentioned   .  One news story mentions it, three essays are written by fans of it that mention it, and no books mention it. Sticky Parkin 03:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: So in other words you've just confirmed that it's verifiable and notable. --Gene_poole (talk) 04:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You might think that meets WP:NOTE but I don't, not independently of Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence if that is what it's part of, or of these life extension theories in general- it's just a small part of them and not a term used outside discussion of them. Sticky Parkin 15:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete The book review does not show it a notable phrase--just as a catchy title for the review. Publications frequently use allusive titles of this sort, but it does not make them notable. What might be notable is the book being reviewed. this is not the title of that book. DGG (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   -- VG &#x260E; 03:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Three reliable sources added (New YORK Magazine, Slate, and Boston College Magazine), demonstrating that the phrase is consistently used to identify a well-defined concept. Not sure how this could still fail to meet the criteria. — Swpbτ • c 04:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence . The concept is important to that wing of transhumanism, but this article is covered by WP:NEO and WP:DICDEF. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Indefinite lifespan looks like a better target. And pretty much the whole of Topic outline of life extension and related articles are in need of cleaning. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Our topics are not required to be mentioned "much". Also, the current title is quite arch and the topic is likely to have been discussed using a different form of words.  It follows that simple searches are not a good test of muchness. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes they are required to be discussed, really. At least to have more than four sources in WP:RS that mention them, and most of those probably shallow mentions, and certainly not even the most august sources.  If you think there's a more commonly used title, find it.:) Sticky Parkin</b> 15:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sources don't have to be "august" by anyone's personal standard - they have to meet RS, which all of the sources clearly do. Four is a significant number of independent sources (what number would be good enough for you?), and the mentions in those sources are more than enough to show that the term is "real" and used independently, and is therefore not WP:NEO. And no, there is not any another term for the exact, rather specific meaning "the point at which the rate of increase in life expectancy out-paces the rate of aging." Why on Earth would there be, and why would there need to be? — Swpbτ • c 15:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: This term does and will play a fundamental role in the coming DeBate about Longevity Rainer Wasserfuhr (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't keep article based on possible future role- WP:CRYSTAL- that believers think it will have, but base whether it's kept or not on its current lack of use or use. <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 15:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * comment if User:Eldereft is right and this is part of Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence, or some other one of the life extension articles, then I'm happy for it to be merged there, but I bet AEV is never mentioned without reference to the rest of these theories, i.e. it's not independently notable. <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 15:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. More Aubrey De Grey life extension cruft, based on a single entirely hypothetical paper. This is maximally something that could be mentioned as a sideline in life extension or life expectancy. Can't these people use their resources to deal with existing health problems first? JFW | T@lk  20:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Watch the WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it's got no place here. The only question is the notability of the concept, which has been shown. — Swpbτ • c 22:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, no hits in PubMed or Web of Science = not a notable scientific concept. Could be defined in Life extension, but doesn't rate an article of its own at present. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No indication this concept appears in anything but a primary source and reviews thereof. The term wasn't even coined by the original author but by a reviewer. VG &#x260E; 19:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.