Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longevism


 * 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 Life extension. (or wherever). There's consensus against keeping, and most seem to believe that either deletion or a redirect (w/one mention of a "keep or merge") is appropriate, so I just rounded to redirect. The article's history is preserved for merging any contents, and if the redirect's target is disputed (or anyone feels it's simply not needed at all), it can be listed at redirects for discussion. slakr \ talk / 05:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Longevism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Apparent neologism with no third-party verifiable evidence of noteworthiness or currency. The sources listed mostly do not in fact use the neologism, and much of the article text is about people who support a concept something like the neologism but never actually used it. The article was previously speedied as a duplication of longevity; the single-issue-editor creator just created it again. I PRODed it, the creator removed it. So AFD it is. Creator's apologia, which doesn't address that the RSes either don't use the neologism or don't use it with the meaning posited here. Zero Google newspaper sources, zero JSTOR hits, zero HighBeam hits, one scholarly usage which isn't this meaning. - David Gerard (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Note: a suitable redirect would also be fine by me - David Gerard (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Although there appear to be few academic sources that use the term, the subject material is a bit beyond my grasp and it is not clear to me that they are referring to an ideology. This might simply warrant a redirect to Longevity. For what it is worth, I also stumbled across the term "prolongevism" and noticed in Wikipedia that Prolongevity redirects to Life extension. - Location (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A redirect to life extension would be OK by me too - David Gerard (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. I have included in my post below some evidence that longevism is indeed an ideology. In any case, I would be fine with replacing the word ideology with something more bread. Maybe we could instead say that it's "the search for" long life, "a subculture" devoted to it, or "the idea" that it is desirable. Removing everything seems a bit harsh, though, doesn't it? --Haptic-feedback (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Life_extension - the article life extension covers the movements and ideologies already - David Gerard (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. However, it should be inconsequential to this discussion. According to Wikipedia's general notability guideline, the subject is to be presumed suitable as its own article, assuming its criteria are satisfied. Therefore, to follow Wikipedia's own guideline, you or someone else must demonstrate that either the subject has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (as clearly defined by the guideline) or that the guideline is somehow inappropriate, if you are to delete or redirect the page. If my analyses of the sources below are incorrect, then please show me where and why; otherwise, removal of the article is unwarranted. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. No OED entry.  No evidence that this is a term in widespread use outside of a particular webpage and some scattered mentions which may be referring to something else entirely.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I do not think that the term is a neologism. Longevism has been used in the way described in the article since at least 1998, as shown in the book 1650-1850: Ideas, Aesthetics, and Inquiries in the Early Modern Era. Note that the author indeed uses the word longevism to mean the trend of extending lifespans using advances in medical science during the time period covered by the book, thus supporting the definition used in the article. Further, the term longevist has been in use since at least 1824, as shown by a perennial calendar published that year. Here, it describes a man known for his old age.
 * In my "apologia", I clearly showed the noteworthiness of the topic by demonstrating the satisfaction of each criterion in Wikipedia's general notability guideline. The guideline states that such adherence means that the article should be presumed suitable. The sources I used for demonstration both used the term longevism, in fact, and they used it as the article does, as I will prove below.
 * The first source, Hughes's chapter on transhumanism in Leadership in Science and Technology: A Reference Handbook, even includes the term in a section heading, "Transhumanism, Singularitarianism, and Longevism". Throughout his chapter, he describes how scientists have worked to prolong life (as I have summarized in the article), and the section under that heading is of particular note: Hughes says (with my emphasis added),
 * "In his 2004 history Rapture: A Raucous Tour of Cloning, Transhumanism, and the New Era of Immortality, Brian Alexander tells a story of the convergence of two communities —transhumanist longevists and genomic scientists. The book chronicles how, on the one hand, the longevity subculture—another movement that substantially overlaps with transhumanism—was gradually drawn away from pseudoscience and medical quackery to the actual science of longevity emerging from clinical trials, longitudinal studies, and genetics."
 * The first source, Hughes's chapter on transhumanism in Leadership in Science and Technology: A Reference Handbook, even includes the term in a section heading, "Transhumanism, Singularitarianism, and Longevism". Throughout his chapter, he describes how scientists have worked to prolong life (as I have summarized in the article), and the section under that heading is of particular note: Hughes says (with my emphasis added),
 * "In his 2004 history Rapture: A Raucous Tour of Cloning, Transhumanism, and the New Era of Immortality, Brian Alexander tells a story of the convergence of two communities —transhumanist longevists and genomic scientists. The book chronicles how, on the one hand, the longevity subculture—another movement that substantially overlaps with transhumanism—was gradually drawn away from pseudoscience and medical quackery to the actual science of longevity emerging from clinical trials, longitudinal studies, and genetics."
 * "In his 2004 history Rapture: A Raucous Tour of Cloning, Transhumanism, and the New Era of Immortality, Brian Alexander tells a story of the convergence of two communities —transhumanist longevists and genomic scientists. The book chronicles how, on the one hand, the longevity subculture—another movement that substantially overlaps with transhumanism—was gradually drawn away from pseudoscience and medical quackery to the actual science of longevity emerging from clinical trials, longitudinal studies, and genetics."


 * Not only does this establish the use of the term, but it also establishes longevists as part of a "subculture" and "movement". The other source I used, The White Death: A History of Tuberculosis, has this to say (also with my emphasis added):
 * "Medical consumerism – like all sorts of consumerism, only more menacingly – is designed to be unsatisfying. The prolongation of life and the search for perfect health (beauty, youth, happiness) are inherently self-defeating. The law of diminishing returns necessarily applies. You can make higher percentages of people survive into their eighties and nineties. But as any geriatric ward shows, that is not the same as to confer enduring mobility, awareness and autonomy. Extending life grows medically feasible, but it is often a life deprived of everything, and one exposed to degrading neglect as resources grow over-stretched and politics turn mean. What an ignominious destiny for medicine if its future turned into one of bestowing meagre increments of unenjoyed life! It would mirror the fate of athletics, in which disproportionate energies and resources – not least medical ones, like illegal steroids – are now invested to shave records by milliseconds. And, it goes without saying, the logical extension of longevism – the "abolition" of death – would not be a solution but only an exacerbation. To air these predicaments is not anti-medical spleen – a churlish reprisal against medicine for its victories – but simply to face the growing reality of medical power not exactly without responsibility but with dissolving goals."
 * "Medical consumerism – like all sorts of consumerism, only more menacingly – is designed to be unsatisfying. The prolongation of life and the search for perfect health (beauty, youth, happiness) are inherently self-defeating. The law of diminishing returns necessarily applies. You can make higher percentages of people survive into their eighties and nineties. But as any geriatric ward shows, that is not the same as to confer enduring mobility, awareness and autonomy. Extending life grows medically feasible, but it is often a life deprived of everything, and one exposed to degrading neglect as resources grow over-stretched and politics turn mean. What an ignominious destiny for medicine if its future turned into one of bestowing meagre increments of unenjoyed life! It would mirror the fate of athletics, in which disproportionate energies and resources – not least medical ones, like illegal steroids – are now invested to shave records by milliseconds. And, it goes without saying, the logical extension of longevism – the "abolition" of death – would not be a solution but only an exacerbation. To air these predicaments is not anti-medical spleen – a churlish reprisal against medicine for its victories – but simply to face the growing reality of medical power not exactly without responsibility but with dissolving goals."
 * "Medical consumerism – like all sorts of consumerism, only more menacingly – is designed to be unsatisfying. The prolongation of life and the search for perfect health (beauty, youth, happiness) are inherently self-defeating. The law of diminishing returns necessarily applies. You can make higher percentages of people survive into their eighties and nineties. But as any geriatric ward shows, that is not the same as to confer enduring mobility, awareness and autonomy. Extending life grows medically feasible, but it is often a life deprived of everything, and one exposed to degrading neglect as resources grow over-stretched and politics turn mean. What an ignominious destiny for medicine if its future turned into one of bestowing meagre increments of unenjoyed life! It would mirror the fate of athletics, in which disproportionate energies and resources – not least medical ones, like illegal steroids – are now invested to shave records by milliseconds. And, it goes without saying, the logical extension of longevism – the "abolition" of death – would not be a solution but only an exacerbation. To air these predicaments is not anti-medical spleen – a churlish reprisal against medicine for its victories – but simply to face the growing reality of medical power not exactly without responsibility but with dissolving goals."


 * Note that these are both sources scholarly uses of the term (not just the "one scholarly usage" claimed above).
 * Additionally, I would like to point out that most of the sources referenced on the page do use the term longevism or longevist, or both, and many more can be found with a simple Google search.
 * Finally, I want to object to Mr. Gerard's attempt to discredit me. A perusal of the page for longevity makes it quite clear that longevism is not the same as longevity, so the speedy deletion was obviously unwarranted. Sure, I recreated the page after it was removed, but I addressed every point made by the deleter, and he has not tried to repeat his mistake in the month since his one and only attempt. I particularly object to being described as a "single-issue-editor creator", as I have been editing Wikipedia for years without using an account, and my Contributions page even shows a few recent edits on unrelated topics.
 * --Haptic-feedback (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Finally, I want to object to Mr. Gerard's attempt to discredit me. A perusal of the page for longevity makes it quite clear that longevism is not the same as longevity, so the speedy deletion was obviously unwarranted. Sure, I recreated the page after it was removed, but I addressed every point made by the deleter, and he has not tried to repeat his mistake in the month since his one and only attempt. I particularly object to being described as a "single-issue-editor creator", as I have been editing Wikipedia for years without using an account, and my Contributions page even shows a few recent edits on unrelated topics.
 * --Haptic-feedback (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * --Haptic-feedback (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * --Haptic-feedback (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: Above comment is from the article creator.


 * Redirect to Life extension - I don't see any indication that "longevism" is distinctly different than this article, which already mentions "longevists." It could be speedily deleted as article duplicates existing article, but a redirect seems like a good idea. —Мандичка YO 😜 08:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The life extension page is about a "science", "medicine", or "gerontology" rather than a set of ideas. The page describes longevists as wanting to live indefinitely, which is not how most of the sources of the longevism page describe them. Are you sure that these concepts are the same thing? Do you think we should add a section on longevism to the life extension page? --Haptic-feedback (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Based purely on the article and looking at the sources, the claim that the word longevism belongs to an ideology of transhumanism is simply not supported. According to the longevism article itself, longevism is defined as "extension of the human lifespan and life expectancy within the limit of the opportunities increasingly offered by biological and physical sciences;" This is from the "Italian transhumanist manifesto" article that has been translated into English. The original, obviously, is in Italian, and as anyone can see, not only does it NOT refer to the word "longevism" it uses the word "longevità," which is the Italian word for longevity, and not "longevismo," which is the Italian word for longevism. (It's used as a category here, and these articles are about medical science). If the original author of the manifesto wanted to use a word that meant something different than longevity, it would have been possible to do so by using the word longevismo. So the translation is complete crap and highly sketchy. Another claimed "source" is the Psychology Today article, which does not define longevism as anything, but lists longevity (NOT longevism) along with other "meaning of life" pursuits/principles like altruism and hedonism. Only under the entry for sensationalism does it use the phrase longevism ("Quality of life, not quantity: totally opposite to prudent, careful longevism: boring!"). The other sources, from what I can see, fail to define it in a radically different way than similar terms like "life extensionists" in a way that warrants a separate article. I don't doubt there are transhumanists who embrace longevism, but the question is whether they have done it in such a way that the word itself is now associated with their ideology. IMO the burden to prove longevism as an ideology, as evidenced by significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, has not been met.  —Мандичка YO 😜 03:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that the article makes no claim that longevism is an ideology that belongs to transhumanism; rather, it claims that it is an ideology that is sometimes associated with transhumanism. I don't know a lick of Italian, so I can't defend the translators' word choices with much confidence. I also admit that citation of the Psychology Today article may be poor. But these uses are still both in the same sense as in the longevism page and therefore support it, if only lightly. Besides, there are other sources that associate longevism with transhumanism, such as Hughes's work. Further, you do not address the sources that are used in my arguments (here and on this page) that do give the proof of "significant coverage in independent, reliable sources". To be clear, the sources are Cope's 1650-1850: Ideas, Aesthetics, and Inquiries in the Early Modern Era, Dormandy's The White Death: A History of Tuberculosis, and Hughes's chapter "Transhumanism" in Leadership in Science and Technology: A Reference Handbook. Please see the quotes given on this page, and please note the definitions of significant, independent, and reliable given by Wikpedia's notability guideline. Now, what about these sources are not significant, independent, or reliable? --Haptic-feedback (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to transhumanism, I'd say: The article claims to be about an ideology. Now, I have more doubts about this ideology than you do, whoever you are, but ideology can be defined too many ways to completely disprove that the . . . people . . . nattering on and on (and on) about "transhumanism" aren't tantamount to an ideology. As for this article, it's an unsupported neologism. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Information: I know the Kevin Cope article, and he's not talking about this at all. He's a scholar of 18th century history and ideas who has been particularly interested in the development of ideas during the critical "revolution" in philosophy of the 18th century. How did people view the Bible's discussion of people who lived to 800-900 years? How did that change? See the reference to Brobdignag in there? He means the Strulbugs. Hithladaeus (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I take it that you mean Cope's book does not talk about longevism in the sense given by the Wikipedia page, but I don't see why. I don't have access to the full text, but the previews that Google Books gives me when I search for longevism all point to the same meaning. I will quote each of these previews here:
 * "An important study of longevism within the history of ideas is G. J. Gruman, "A History of Ideas about the Prolongation of Life", Transactions of the American Philosophical Association 56 (1966), 3–102."
 * "An important study of longevism within the history of ideas is G. J. Gruman, "A History of Ideas about the Prolongation of Life", Transactions of the American Philosophical Association 56 (1966), 3–102."


 * Here, we can see he includes longevism under "Ideas about the Prolongation of Life". Given that an ideology is a set of ideas by definition, this supports the longevism page's description of the subject.
 * "[...] different schools of longevism framed their contexts and characters in different ways, they nevertheless shared the common view that since the Enlightenment people have been living longer, and that their longevism has narrative as well as historical significance."
 * "[...] different schools of longevism framed their contexts and characters in different ways, they nevertheless shared the common view that since the Enlightenment people have been living longer, and that their longevism has narrative as well as historical significance."
 * "[...] different schools of longevism framed their contexts and characters in different ways, they nevertheless shared the common view that since the Enlightenment people have been living longer, and that their longevism has narrative as well as historical significance."


 * Here, we're shown that there can be "schools of longevism", as in schools of thought, again supporting the claim that longevism is an ideology. The talk of living longer in the Enlightenment, that era of science and reason, supports the page's definition further.
 * "He was indeed in a very small minority of skeptics. The more pervasive view was the sunny optimistic one, based on wonder and miracle as much as anything else, the view that life was getting longer and the marvel that it was. There was a grotesque monstrosity in this growing longevism: [...]"
 * "He was indeed in a very small minority of skeptics. The more pervasive view was the sunny optimistic one, based on wonder and miracle as much as anything else, the view that life was getting longer and the marvel that it was. There was a grotesque monstrosity in this growing longevism: [...]"
 * "He was indeed in a very small minority of skeptics. The more pervasive view was the sunny optimistic one, based on wonder and miracle as much as anything else, the view that life was getting longer and the marvel that it was. There was a grotesque monstrosity in this growing longevism: [...]"


 * This passage seems to refer to longevism as a view that marvels at life getting longer, corroborating even more the longevism article.
 * Could you please elaborate on your reasons why Cope here is "not talking about this at all"?
 * --Haptic-feedback (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Cope is using the word as a backformation off of "longevity." In other words, he's using the word as a nonce formation rather than in reference to an ongoing or postulated ideology. "Longevity-ism" is the sense of the word in his passage. I believe he was dealing with the question of "progress" and the eternal question of optimism/pessimism in the age and the repercussions of empiricism.
 * He has been interested both in the reactions to Malthus and to the development of probablistic reasoning. (The last time I heard him speak, he was talking about how important Huygens's objections to inductive reasoning were and how the early 18th century had begun taking unknowable propositions and dividing them up into greater and greater likelihoods as a means of solving problems. That was . . . a few years before the publication of this book.)
 * The general problem we have to deal with is the stereotype of "enlightenment." Is the 18th century a time of cheerful faith in Science, or was it a time of vicious skepticism about the insidious effects of nascent capitalism, enclosures, uncertainty, and doubts about man's essential nature? Most of us know that the answer is actually "both, at the same time." Hithladaeus (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Cope is using the word as a backformation off of "longevity." In other words, he's using the word as a nonce formation rather than in reference to an ongoing or postulated ideology. "Longevity-ism" is the sense of the word in his passage. I believe he was dealing with the question of "progress" and the eternal question of optimism/pessimism in the age and the repercussions of empiricism.
 * He has been interested both in the reactions to Malthus and to the development of probablistic reasoning. (The last time I heard him speak, he was talking about how important Huygens's objections to inductive reasoning were and how the early 18th century had begun taking unknowable propositions and dividing them up into greater and greater likelihoods as a means of solving problems. That was . . . a few years before the publication of this book.)
 * The general problem we have to deal with is the stereotype of "enlightenment." Is the 18th century a time of cheerful faith in Science, or was it a time of vicious skepticism about the insidious effects of nascent capitalism, enclosures, uncertainty, and doubts about man's essential nature? Most of us know that the answer is actually "both, at the same time." Hithladaeus (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that the word longevism is a backformation with a meaning like "longevity-ism". He surely uses the term to mean a belief, favour, trend, or something similar of longevity. But this is what I meant for the longevism page to be about. Where we disagree is on your point that his use of the word forbids future usage in the context of another time frame. Clearly, the term was adopted by others to refer to views in other periods, and the longevism page even shows how the concept has evolved from the era covered by Cope. What brings you to the conclusion that Cope pre-emptively limited the definition of the word? --Haptic-feedback (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No word can been pre-emptively limited to one definition; however, saying a word can take on a new meaning is not the same as saying it already has. —Мандичка YO 😜 04:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge into Life_extension. The article life extension is 66 kilobytes, and a size split is justified when the articles passes 50 kb. See Splitting. There is also justification for a content split. See Splitting. Waters.Justin (talk) 10:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to life extension, per Wikimandia. --Randykitty (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)*


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Per WP:NEO, I think redirect or delete would be most appropriate for this article. I agree that life extension is the most natural fit and that article could probably use some paring down itself. jps (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability as a separate subject from life extension. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - almost never used WP:Neologism, article is a WP:Coatrack with tidbits of wisdom out of context, to support this proposed concept. Kraxler (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)