Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Late-life mortality deceleration


 * 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn; all other !votes were to keep. See WP:SKCRIT #1. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Late-life mortality deceleration

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A huge chunk of original research; basically retelling a 2011 paper. Other references are just for tangential issues, a background of the paper. Not a single ref after 2011, i.e., no peer review cited, andd the nearly whole text is coming from a single primary source Lembit Staan (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * withdraw per Weburbia and Danbloch. Lembit Staan (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * keep Late-life mortality deceleration is a fundamental topic in gerontology and longevity demographics. The term has been around since at least the 1970s and is widely used. There are plenty of references in both primary literature and secondary sources. Try scholar, book and news searches. The mortality plateau is the ubiquitous example of mortality deceleration models and many more references can be found under that name. This article does not do the subject justice because it focuses on just one paper, but it is not original research and the topic is highly notable. It just needs someone to go through the sources available and update the article. Weburbia (talk) 08:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you read my nomination? I am not talking about the subject, I am talking about the wikpedia page, which is basically retelling a new primary source. If the subject is valid, then NUKE and write from scratch. Lembit Staan (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * keep The article has a source, so it is by definition not original research. Having only a single source is an issue, and I've added a maintenance tag to reflect that, but nothing in the OP's post is a grounds for deletion. Dan Bloch (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2021 (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.