Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Gerontology Research Group. Thanks to everyone who contributed. Looking at the arguments put forward, opinions in favour of keeping are clearly in a minority. Since a redirect was suggested and mention of Young added to the GRG article, a redirect has been the most popular outcome, and I am presuming that the majority of editors who expressed views favouring deletion would not object to a redirect. Michig (talk) 09:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Robert Young (longevity claims researcher)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has had a somewhat troubled history, thanks in no small part to the generally toxic environment of longevity-related articles. Besides the two AfDs this was also deleted per G4 in early 2011, and the undeletion of the original 2007 version occurred about a month and change ago. Since then a few more sources have been added to the article, but nothing approaching real substantial coverage. I found this to be a good analysis of the post-2007 sources added since the article's undeletion; basically they don't amount to anything more than some basic coverage, certainly not rising to the standard of notability. I'm pinging, , , and as people who are all familiar with this topic area.

Also, discussions on this topic have a nasty habit of eliciting serious canvassing violations and devolving into a race to the bottom of Graham's hierarchy. Regardless of the outcome, let's please try to avoid going around this loop yet again. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 23:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect see below. FourViolas (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep per my comment at Deletion review/Log/2015 January 27. Here are the sources about the subject:   The article notes: "Then, the group's network of clever gerontology detectives like Robert Young seeks proof and insights. 'The entire globe has been explored and mapped,' Young says. 'Now, we can start discovering the geography of the human life span.' Young and others mine troves of data to verify the truly old, research their lives and uncover senior frauds. ...  Young, the group's senior investigator, says few people have the ambition to reach 110. But, he notes, 'At 109, given the alternative, 110 can seem acceptable.'  ...  Young and group colleagues such as Louis Epstein often pore over old census data and military draft records.  ...  Young, who grew up fascinated by World War I tales told by an aged aunt, thinks there's much to learn about history from, say, an ancient war veteran or the child of a slave. He travels to birthday parties for listed super-centenarians, where he's treated like family. 'I want to educate people on what it takes to live a very long time,' he says. 'It's not easy and it's not a circus sideshow.'"  The article notes: "The ironically named Robert Young spends an inordinate amount of time with the very old. Young, 31, a Georgia State University student, researches supercentenarians -- people 110 and older -- for the Guinness World Records and for gerontology research centers. His specialty is confirming or disproving claims of advanced age from around the world."  The article notes: "Robert Young says he believes that age is just a number -- no matter how high it gets. The aptly named Young has spent 20 years studying the older set and maintains a database of verified supercentenarians -- people age 110 and older."  The article notes: "When Robert Young was little, he found himself wishing he had gotten to know the elderly people in his life before they died. 'I wanted to meet them and stay around them first, because they would be passing away first,' Mr. Young recalls. The younger people, he would get to later. Now Mr. Young's childhood inclination has turned into his profession, as the gerontologist tracks the world's oldest people for a variety of research groups. His work and that of other researchers' has helped to create a new branch of demography: Statistics about the world's best agers. Though major snags persist in the study of such a rare group of people, it has yielded interesting numbers about how rare it is to live to 110—and how likely those who get there are to reach 111, or beyond. ... Now Mr. Young works for Guinness as its head consultant on checking such claims, and also verifies claims for GRG."  The article notes: "Yet some embellish their ages upward, said Robert Young, who validates supercentenarians' ages for the Guinness Book of World Records and Gerontology Research Group, which maintains a list of supercentenarians that guided Friedman's travels. Just because someone is old doesn't mean they are honest, said Young, whose suspicions extend to a yogi master subject of Friedman's." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Robert Young to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Notability says: "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Robert Young has been frequently quoted as an expert in The New York Times (link), the Los Angeles Times (link), and The Washington Post (link). Cunard (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Keep - Hey I'm no fan of this guy, having had tons of trouble with edits here on Wikipedia. But he appears to be the foremost expert in his field. Every time someone old dies the world newspapers quote Robert Young. Whether it's the Tokyo Times, the New York Times, the UK Metro, the NY Daily News, at CNN or in books. His sourced opinions are endless. Like him or not, when the press needs an expert opinion, he is the one they get. Considering how many small music bands or company CEO's are listed here, his sourced acknowledged expertise seems to warrant inclusion at Wikipedia as notable. He's sort of like the Kate Hutton of his field. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Pinging User:ThaddeusB (who closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox). Pinging Deletion review/Log/2015 January 27 participants User:Stalwart111, User:Hobit, User:Reyk, and User:CBDunkerson. Cunard (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe he satisfies WP:BASIC. Looking through the sources, the Chicago Tribune article in 2006 is an in-depth article and not merely an interview. By itself, this isn't a strong case for notability, but there is another clause in WP:BASIC:"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."  As Fyunck(click) points out above, he is interviewed in numerous articles on supercentenarians and appears to be the world's expert that everyone goes to, indicating that his coverage in these articles is not trivial. --I am One of Many (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I was probably the most sceptical about Cunard's efforts (and request at DRV) to recreate the article, for all the reasons outlined by the nominator. I still fear this could become a magnet for POV pushing or promotion but that hasn't happened in the month since this was recreated. In the end, the subject technically passes, I think, and so other considerations are secondary.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And I should say, my scepticism was based on the past history of the article itself - Cunard made a strong case at DRV and then expanded on that to win me over. I appreciate his ping here, despite our different approaches at DRV.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect Despite the bulk of the text quoted, it's the same insubstantial stuff over and over: he grew up fascinated by World War I, wished he'd known old people before they died, hopes to teach college someday, plus some puffy quotes. There's almost nothing about Young himself, and this is reflected in the article, which strains (to put it charitably) to find things to say:


 * Young is a graduate research assistant at Georgia State University No he's not; that was ten years ago.
 * previously worked for the U.S. Census Bureau Apparently he was an "enumerator" -- someone who rings your doorbell because you didn't mail back the census form.
 * Young searches for census reports, baptismal records, and other documentation to verify age claims Um, OK.
 * has met with Bettie Wilson, Susie Gibson, Moses Hardy Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan and other supercentenarians ... attends supercentenarians' birthday parties where he is warmly welcomed. WP:NOTINHERITED
 * Jerry Friedman credits Young with making his book, "Earth's Elders: The Wisdom of the World's Oldest People", possible by helping to find, document, and make contact with the elders covered in the book. Being thanked for research assistance isn't notability material.
 * Young also lectures on age research This is cited to a conference program  showing that Young gave a half-hour talk in 2005. That's not "lectures on age research."
 * founding member of the Supercentenarian Research Foundation Apparently founded in 2006, its website hasn't been updated since 2010 . Being founder of an organization which... well... which you founded, and nobody else ever mentions, isn't notability material.

Other than his birthdate, that's almost the entirety of the article. The media "quotes" are stuff like this (each bullet being the entirety of mentions of Young in a given article):
 * 'In 2001, after combing the Internet and consulting with Robert Young, a gerontologist in Atlanta, Mr. Friedman packed his cameras and headed to Manchester, Mass., to meet Ann Smith, born March 2, 1891.'
 * 'Robert Young, a senior consultant for gerontology for Guinness World Records, said that research by his group, National Public Radio and others had been unable to locate any other surviving black World War I veterans. Only 10 to 12 American veterans of that war remain, Mr. Young said.'
 * 'Meanwhile, a Maryland man ...turned out to be a mere 92. "We had so much information that he was lying," says Robert Young, GRG's senior claims investigator. "He was listed as eight years old in the 1920 Census and 18 in the 1930 Census." ... Old people often feel ignored and discarded, says GRG's Mr. Young.'
 * 'Emiliano Mercado del Toro, 115, of Puerto Rico is expected to assume the title of world's oldest person, said Robert Young, a Guinness researcher.'
 * 'Robert Young says he believes that age is just a number -- no matter how high it gets. The aptly named Young has spent 20 years studying the older set and maintains a database of verified supercentenarians -- people age 110 and older.'

No amount of such stuff constitutes the "significant coverage [addressing] the topic directly and in detail" required by GNG, nor ACADEMIC's "Impact outside of academia". The topic area of longevity has been the locus of an almost unbelievable amount of spam and puffery here on WP, and this is just another part of it. EEng (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - if the press recognizes him as an expert in his field (clearly they do), then he is notable. We shouldn't and (normally don't) substitute our judgement for theirs, and previous bad behavior (which was mostly many years ago I might add) doesn't change that.  Also, the GNG is met, as demonstrated by Cunard and others.  Like it or not, Mr. Young is notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Except that his expertise hasn't translated into coverage which actually establishes notability; what in EEng's analysis above do you disagree with? The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 16:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * EEng's analysis is mostly about the article's content, which is irrelevant. There is nothing wrong with a short article that can't be expanded - plenty of notable subjects only warrant brief articles.  As to notability, being an expert and quoted as such does establish notability.  (Incidentally, he is also credited as an author of several academic papers on supercentenarians that have been cited by others, so its not just the press that considers him an expert on the subject.)  We are not slaves to guidelines - they are called "guidelines" not "rules" for that reason.  I also agree with Cunard's analysis of the sources that shows the GNG is met as more than 2 sources have substantial coverage. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The content of the article is relevant when that content clearly constitutes every anyone could think of to throw at the subject in hopes something notability-lending would stick -- except as seen above nothing does.
 * As to the "several academic papers on supercentanarians that have been cited by others", it appears that most or (almost) all of these were published in Rejuvenation Research a "fringy" journal edited by  the authors of these very papers -- and when you look to see who the "10 citations" are, it turns out to be just citations by those same authors -- citing their own papers! (For example: .) EEng (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I remain unconvinced about the content argument. All that shows is the article will be short, which is not a problem...  In regards to being cited, I referring primarily to "Survival of Parents and Siblings of Supercentenarians" published by Journals of Gerontology and "Characteristics of 32 supercentenarians" published by Journal of the American Geriatrics Society each has 45-50 citations. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sixth (of eight) coauthors of one paper, and fifth (of seven) coauthors of another? Can someone work out the h-index, please? EEng (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a bit tricky to work out because he has a very common name, but also because he seems to keep publishing the same paper over and over in different journals with different titles (basically just a big table of names and ages of old people) and should that really count as more than one? But anyway, his top citation counts on Google scholar are 49 for "Survival of parents and siblings", 45 for "Characteristics of 32 supercentenarians", 19 for "Typologies of extreme longevity myths", 10-10-10-9-8-6-4 for seven of the copies of the same table-of-old-people paper, 7 for "Global mortality rates beyond age 110", and 6 for "Supercentenarians and transthyretin amyloidosis". So the h-index is anywhere from 6 to 8 depending on how you count the duplicates. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * On looking now, I see what you're saying about publishing the same material over and over. Honestly! EEng (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To be clear, my keep vote is definitely not based on his papers, it is based on the press coverage. I was just saying he also has been cited by other academics. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NACADEMIC. "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * He's not quoted as an "academic expert". EEng (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * He's quoted as an expert on age research, which what he is notable for. I suppose you are saying that isn't an academic field, but even if true, I think the same principle applies.  I make the same sort of argument about (for example) lawyers and doctors who don't usually publish significant number of papers, yet are quoted as experts by the press.  Being cited as an expert by RS confers notability, IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Other than, where does anyone call him an "expert"? EEng (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if they don't use the word "expert", the source by and large clearly treat him that way. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In the first couple Google search pages I found: the Hartford Courant, and KRTV News, and Hollywood Republican and Educational Media Reviews. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Hollywood Republican and KRTV look to be the same excerpt, which leaves us with one brief comment from 2005, one from 2010, and one from 2013. Contrast that with James Andrews, who although he doesn't publish much is a very visible media presence in his field. Young doesn't even come close to that. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 22:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In a question of degree, I agree with you. It can certainly be debated on the wording of expert in the article. I simply answered the above query "where does anyone call him an "expert"? In a quick search, others do call him an expert. They may be few in number or in scope, but other sources do call him such. Not so sure about the term "academic expert"... he is probably more like Guinness's foremost research expert on super-centenarians. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * To really understand what's going on here, and to put these "media expert" claims in context, one must really read Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Young_(longevity_claims_researcher). EEng (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete The Chicago Tribune article is the only one that comes close to taking a look at Mr. Young as its principal subject. There would need to be multiple such articles -- ideally focused even more explicitly on him -- to establish notability. -Pete (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Change vote to Redirect to Gerontology Research Group, per John Carter below. -Pete (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Despite the subject's clear failure to pass WP:PROF, I think the Chicago Tribune 2006 and Wall Street Journal 2010 articles may be enough for WP:GNG. But the article should be stubbed back to what can be sourced to those two articles, which are the only ones with any depth of coverage of the subject. In particular, the mutually inconsistent "he is a consultant for Guinness/no, he is a grad student/no, he is a senior claims investigator/no, he spends his time going to old people's birthday parties" all sourced to primary sources or articles that mention him in passing should be cut, as should all the fluff pseudo-sources about old people that quote him but are not about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable Czolgolz (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete After reading through all the rationales here, pro and con, I am persuaded by the editors who look at the content of the few press articles rather than just at their existence. Wikipedia has got to stop being punked by anyone who can issue a press release that is taken up by a reporter hungry for a story. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The detailed analysis across two AFDs (8 years apart), a DRV and other discussions elsewhere substantiates editors' unwillingness to be "punked". That rather simplifies the argument, too, which relates to whether the coverage is significant coverage which is a discussion well beyond mere existence. In short, everybody here is discussing the content of those few press articles.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Probably the most non notable individual I've ever seen with an extant article. No real justification to keep produced so far. -  Gallo glass  03:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * First let me assure Cunard there is nothing "weak" about my delete vote. My first choice would be to 'Delete and Salt' but there's always the remote chance that the subject may in some future date actually become notable. I would reluctantly accept a 'Redirect' but I do believe a straight delete is still the most appropriate choice.
 * Why is this the most appropriate choice? well this article was initially created and maintained and kept in existence by the subject and a large number of sock puppets controlled by this individual, in clear and flagrant breach of WP:COI.
 * We were told that he was notable due to his extensive press coverage, which on close examination in the 2007 AfD turned out to be a small collection of passing mentions with virtually no information on the subject. These decade old articles are now the basis for the resurrection of this article, again with no new information of any substance whatsoever added in the intervening years.
 * We were also informed that the subject was notable as he was a contributor to Guinness 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 the subject does. Where in the notability requirements does it cover maintaining a small database and passing along information that's available to any undergraduate researcher with a small amount of nous?
 * Finally we have these citations on the above mentioned small database which on close examination, like it did several years ago is a small, somewhat incestuous group of non-notables citing each other. Again, no change from the first AfD.
 * I really do wonder what went though the thought processes of whoever re-created this article as nothing new has been added to suggest the subject is any more notable now than in 2007. I do hope this meets your requirement for 'depth' on my delete vote Cunard. Regards -  Gallo glass  16:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Lest anyone think Gallo's reference to sockpuppets (though perhaps meatpuppets would have been more accurate), and Blade's reference to the "army of acolytes", are hyperbole, consider this bizarre post from the Arbcom case :
 * "ban me however long, i deserve it, but Robert young and the grg/wop will NEVER be silenced, we have science on our side"
 * EEng (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Meh - clearly he's cited by the media, and he's used by GRG and Guinness. Does he deserve to be cited? Probably not, but that's not our problem. The *fact* that he's cited should be enough for us. Because he's cited, someone might want to learn more about him - and Wikipedia is the go-to place for that sort of information. And, of course, if his article ends up being a short piece that highlights his lack of qualifications, well, that's also not our problem. Rklawton (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article was deleted before basically because the purported sources didn't amount to anything more than passing mentions. Adding some more of the same doesn't fix that. The lack of depth in coverage makes it impossible to ensure NPOV, and that is vital because this article lies in the toxic intersection between biography, fringe medical claims and profitable quackery. Guy (Help!) 06:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I thought the last deletion decision was a solid decision. I've reviewed the "new" evidence, and nothing there justifies this recreation of previously deleted article. Biography of a former grad student. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Borderline notability per GNG. Highly cited person. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The argument about notability as an academic doesn't get off the starting block, as he is not an academic. The mentions in newspapers aren't impressive: the Metro (UK) is a free sheet from the stable of the Daily Mail, itself a tabloid that's reliable for very little. He doesn't do statistics, just finds and keeps records of very old people and their deaths. A worthy activity, but then so is writing reviews on IMDB. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * keep - as it's not an article filled with promotional crap, and the subject is on the edge of notability. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete No substantial change of reliable knowledge about this subject from eight years ago. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thank you to the editor who added the notvote template. Many of the recent "delete" votes are very weak. Several are just bare assertions, having not explained why the sources are insufficient. These are WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE votes (Capitalismojo, Czolgolz, and Galloglass). Guy's argument that "The lack of depth in coverage makes it impossible to ensure NPOV" is unconvincing. How does the article in its current state not comply with WP:NPOV? WP:NPOV should be easy to maintain. If non-neutral material is added in the future, it can be just be removed. Itsmejudith talks about the Metro being unimpressive, but she doesn't indicate why the Chicago Tribune 2006 and Wall Street Journal 2010 articles mentioned by David Eppstein are insufficient.  Cunard (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak? I spent an enormous amount of time trying to find the telegraph uk ref from 2007. Couldn't find it. All but one of the other refs are mere passing references to the subject. Hence my belief that it doesn't meet the GNG. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Your "keep" comment did not reflect your research, which is why I called it weak. Now that you have explained your vote in more detail, I withdraw that comment. We differ on whether the sources are significant enough to establish notability, which is a reasonable difference of opinion. Cunard (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Cunard, for my full opinion opinion on this subject I suggest you read the first AfD, Plenty of Depth there and quite happy to repost here if you really want me to? -  Gallo glass  08:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I read the first AfD, so no need to repost your comments here. Cunard (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No I think I do need to expand my submission as most contributors here will not be familiar with the previous AfD and all the salient points are still relevant as there has been no change in the supporting evidence for the subjects notability or rather lack of it. -  Gallo glass  09:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My point is that we have no idea whether the article violates WP:NPOV or not, due to lack of in-depth coverage by reliable independent sources. Much of the article does reflect some extremely unreliable sources, which is a bit of a red flag. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Which sources in the article are unreliable? Cunard (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - He deserves an article for the work he has done with supercentenarians. I don't see any reason to delete it at all. Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have rewritten the article. Cunard (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * New Source I'm searching Newspapers.com and I have found an in-depth article from 1986:  --I am One of Many (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If that's correct, it would make the subject 11 or 12 years of age when this was written in 1986. However it states in the article he is 31. A bit of a disparity there me thinks. I suspect if we look at the previous sources this will be one of the same press releases that have already examined and found wanting. -  Gallo glass  08:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Or, more likely, since the article was published in 1986, he was 31 in 1986 and he is much older than what is listed in the article. He was probably born in 1955. This article was published again two years later in 1988.  I think you are correct that it is likely the basis for the Chicago Tribune article.--I am One of Many (talk) 08:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Clarification I looked at the original newspaper and it was published in 2006, so for some reason, newspapers.com has attached the wrong publication date to the article. They also have it listed as published in 1988, when in fact it was published again a week later in 2006.--I am One of Many (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Even more of a clarification This is a reprint of the Chicago Tribune article. Jeesh. EEng (talk) 10:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Further clarification It's not a reprint, but the two articles share 90% of the text in common. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, for heaven't sake -- don't you know what it means when an article is tagged (AP)? Just because one paper cut 50 words because they needed more space for Aunt Ethel's Surefire Tollhouse Cookies Recipe doesn't make them different articles. EEng (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. EEng's detailed analysis is persuasive, and remains so despite Cunard's rewrite. From the current state of the article I can determine that he's a person who works for Guinness, attends birthday parties a lot, 13 years ago was a research assistant for a non-notable author who wrote a non-notable book, and was mentioned in passing once or twice in a prominent newspaper. The volume of text now spent on AfDs for this article certainly exceeds the subject's contributions as a "quoted expert". Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a very selective reading of the article. Here is information from one of the articles that provide significant coverage about the subject: "Carl Bialik of The Wall Street Journal wrote that Young's 'work and that of other researchers' has helped to create a new branch of demography: Statistics about the world's best agers.'" Helping to create a new branch of demography is considered by The Wall Street Journal worthy of providing "significant coverage" about. Cunard (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. I am persuaded by EEng. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  11:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Let's look at the various arguments for deletion;
 * 'News accounts only mention him in passing, there is no substantial coverage' - First, I'd argue that 'passing mention' in hundreds of news articles (written at different times by different journalists for different newspapers) more than qualifies in establishing notability (i.e. frequently quoted expert)... but it really doesn't matter because this repeatedly cited reason for deletion is also just flat out false. This article is about Young. So is this one. And this one. That's "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
 * 'Nothing in the content of the article makes him seem notable' - See WP:NNC and WP:ARTN. Our opinion on whether a particular subject or various details about them are notable is irrelevant. If, for some reason, virtually every major english language newspaper in the world decided to mention in passing, repeatedly over the course of several years, that 'Bobby Exampilus has red hair', and then three of them wrote articles about Bobby commenting on how frequently he has been mentioned and other details about his life... then Bobby is notable. The fact that there is nothing notable about having red hair doesn't matter. If the news media has taken significant note of a person then that person is notable, whether you think the reasons for the media doing so are valid or not. Wikipedians are not supposed to form their own opinions on whether a subject is notable or not. They are supposed to observe whether reliable sources have done so.
 * 'He isn't really an expert' - Again, whether someone qualifies as an expert in our opinion is irrelevant. Only whether they are treated as such. The wording of the notability guidelines is clear; "...the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." Young has been quoted in virtually every major english language newspaper in the world (and some non-english ones as well) several times a year for decades. He's an expert. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that he is THE expert that the US news media almost invariably goes to for information about extreme age claims.
 * I won't even bother with arguments related to Young's history with some Wikipedians, as it should be obvious that they have no bearing on notability. The subject is notable, both because he has been frequently quoted as an expert AND because there has been significant coverage of him in independent reliable sources. CBD 15:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well put. Many of the delete arguments seem to be substituting their own judgement ("he hasn't done anything worthy of an article") for that of RS, who do treat him as a notable expert. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep He is sufficiently an expert to qualify. He's not a purely academic researcher, but a research for a major non-academic publication in the field, but this comes close enough to the intent of WP:PROF. That his judgments are used by this source, shows that he is an authority.  That we have somewhat different and probably higher standards in this field than that publication, does not make him less of an authority. He's cited enough that he meets WP:GNG also.  DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The "intent" of PROF is what PROF itself says: to recognize persons engaged in "scholarly research or higher education, and academic notability refers to being known for such engagement." The only parts of PROF that could conceivably apply are these:
 * 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources ... the academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently broadly construed. Major disciplines, such as physics, mathematics, history, political science, or their significant subdisciplines (e.g., particle physics, algebraic geometry, medieval history, "fluid mechanics", "Drosophila genetics" are valid examples). Overly narrow and highly specialized categories should be avoided. Arguing that someone is an expert in an extremely narrow area of study is, in and of itself, not necessarily sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1, except for the actual leaders in those subjects.
 * Gerontology is a scholarly discipline. Keeping your finger on the pulse (if the image may be forgiven) of the 30 oldest people in the world, so that when one of them dies you're the first to issue a press release saying how old he or she was, and who's next on the Angel of Death's target list, isn't a scholarly discipline.
 * 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity ... for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area.
 * Note the words as an academic expert. Organizations and governement agencies routinely have spokesmen who are frequently quoted in various contexts, over decades. Sometimes such spokesmen become themselves notable, sometimes not, depending on whether (for whatever reason) they themselves garner coverage. Here's a good example of someone who was quoted many thousands of times in the media, for more than 30 years, but who himself was non-notable . Short, informational quotes based on what is to a large degree the work of others doesn't make you an expert, just an eager mouthpiece.
 * EEng (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment This 2005 Associated Press article establishes that he was consulted on longevity as early as 2003:  --I am One of Many (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the same AP story we've seen over and over. Its text on Young reads, in its entirety,
 * Before he could embark on his globe-trotting search, Friedman needed a "compass" to find the world's oldest people. He fond one in Robert Young, an Altanta-based investigator for the Gerontology Research Group, which keeps a global database of supercentenarians.
 * As someone said above, helping a non-notable author write a non-notable book doesn't make you notable. EEng (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment It really is ironic that The Blade of the Northern Lights complains of canvassing violations when he has decided decided to "ping" a certain group of users WHO ARE POEPLE THAT TEND TO AGREE WITH HIM. Please note this discussion on his talk page in which he appears to be plotting with EENg about the best time to nominate this for deletion.
 * That is my first point. My second point is in response to the following statement by the user Guy: "The article was deleted before basically because the purported sources didn't amount to anything more than passing mentions. Adding some more of the same doesn't fix that. The lack of depth in coverage makes it impossible to ensure NPOV, and that is vital because this article lies in the toxic intersection between biography, fringe medical claims and profitable quackery." ---> Mr Young does NOT sell products or do anything that could be construed as quackery. He works on a voluntary basis for the GRG, a non-profit organisation. As far as I can see this is a WP:BLP violation, and the user in question should provide a source to back this up or remove it.
 * My third point is that many of these comments are unfair, comparing what he does to "stamp collecting" and other putdowns. He has 23 published scientific citations and is often quoted in the media. I'm not necessarily saying that this is enough for him to be considered notable but to accuse someone of "quackery" and compare their working to stamp collecting is not on. --Ollie231213 (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * On point 1, yeah I thought that was pretty funny myself. Sort of a "don't do what I'm doing" retort. Does their planning sound like a vendetta, yes it does, but at least it's in the open here at wikipedia and not behind closed doors in personal emails. They weren't trying to hide their dislike of this article and Robert Young's profession. As for points 2 and 3, yes the "fringe medical claims and profitable quackery" statement is ridiculous and shows IDONTLIKEIT status, but it's no more than what we see in many other AFD's. Or at least I see that kind of statement quite often. Maybe I've developed a thicker skin through the years, but I assume whoever closes this will look at that statement as useless and throw out the editor's argument completely. The thing is we have articles on wikipedia with far less published citations, or articles on people who are simply CEO's of companies. No one complains all that much since wikipedia usually errs on the side of inclusion. But RYoung has many people mad at him (often for good reasons) and that seems to have translated into not liking anything about his profession also. There doesn't really seem to be a consensus forming here one way or the other so this will likely be closed as "keep" to be on the safe side of things. It's just one little article that gets some hits every time someone very very old is in the news and Robert Young's name gets mentioned. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * And thus we begin the descent in Graham's hierarchy which Blade of the Northern Lights warned about when he made this nomination.
 * I pinged everyone who participated in the first AfD -- that's not canvassing. This has nothing to do with personal dislike for Young or what he does, but for the relentless, unembarrassed self-promotion which wasted thousands of editors hours here until he was finally banned from longevit-related topics, then later blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry in evading that ban. If I thought he was notable I wouldn't care a whit, but he's not.
 * BotNL and I didn't "plot the best time to nominate" -- we talked about how long we should wait for new sources to appear (demonstrating notability) before nominating (assuming appropriate sources didn't appear, which they didn't).
 * The idea that Young has "23 published scientific citations" is laughable. His own LinkedIn page lists eleven publications.
 * Two are the ones mentioned earlier in this discussion, for which he's (respectively) the sixth of eight authors, and fifth of seven.
 * One more, for which he's the second author, has six citatations.
 * The rest were published in Rejuventation Research, which might charitably be described as "fringe" and more candidly as a vanity journal, especially given that one of Young's coauthors is on the journal's editorial board. These papers are just one and two pages long, being nothing more than tables of names, ages, etc. of old people organized in various ways. Each has something like 5 to 10 citations each but -- surprise! -- when you look at the citations, they're all Young and his coauthors citing themselves! ( e.g. ). It's all smoke and mirrors.
 * EEng (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You do make a reasonably good case that he is not particularly significant to science. Indeed, if I were building my own encyclopedia, I would likely not include him.  However, I haven't seen any convincing arguments that he does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability.  There is enough in-depth material to write a short article and whether we like it or not, he is considered an expert on longevity claims based on all the sources that cite him.--I am One of Many (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your not asserting that Blade and I are engaged in some conspiracy. Now let me ask you something... Do you agree he doesn't meet ACADEMIC point 1, The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed? EEng (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think ACADEMIC #1 applies to this case. The case for notability turns on GNG and BASIC.  The sources taken as a whole provide a convincing case that he is consider a notable expert on longevity claims.  Nobody else is consistently interviewed in these cases.  As I said on Blade's talk page a few weeks ago, this is a very borderline case that I believe tips to notability. --I am One of Many (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm relieved at your response -- ACADEMIC is a nonstarter if you bother to actually look at the publications. Which are the sources you would combine per BASIC? EEng (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Have any of the people I pinged had any impact on this discussion? No? OK, so let's set that aside. EEng's comment about the relentless promotion extends beyond Young himself and to an army of acolytes who have over the course of several years obstructed all efforts to clean up their little fiefdom; look at WP:Articles for deletion/Jan Goossenaerts for one of the most spectacular blowups, then imagine running into that literally everywhere you turn. Furthermore, you seem to have the incorrect impression that I have some sort of personal problem with Young. I actually think he's doing good work, but that it doesn't translate to Wikipedia notability. Beyond that, EEng has summarized the sourcing problems well enough that I don't feel a need to rehash them. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 23:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I will repeat: I don't give a monkeys about the outcome of this AfD. What bothers me is the slandering of Mr Young based on inaccurate information. He is NOT A QUACK, that plainly untrue. His LinkedIN page does not list ALL of his citations. Now let me respond to this: "This has nothing to do with personal dislike for Young or what he does, but for the relentless, unembarrassed self-promotion which wasted thousands of editors hours here"---> Please tell me exactly what this "self-promotion" is. Do you mean promoting himself as an expert in the field of longevity research on Wikipedia? Because there's nothing wrong with experts trying to lead a group of editors to improve the encyclopedia, despite what Jimmy Wales would have you think. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You can accuse me of causing a "descent in Graham's Hierarchy" but let's just consider the situation for a moment: Mr Young is being accused of quackery, being slandered by being compared to a "stamp collector", the extent of his citations are not being fully recognised and the journals that are, like Rejuvenation Research, are being trashed as "fringe". Then the AfD starter complains of canvassing (after having an exchange with another user in which they discuss tactically timing the starting of it) and then decides to ping other users who he knows will likely agree with him. And you complain about name-calling? You referred to the editors of longevity articles as "the longevity fanboys". EEng called it "the Vortex of Crazies". So we see hypocrisy here yet again. Like I say, I don't care whether this article is deleted or not, but this AfD is a total joke. --Ollie231213 (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I am in agreement with Ollie231213, I have no opinion on the way this Afd goes, but I do feel a bit uneasy about the way Young is being discussed here. I will not go into details as Ollie has covered this comprehensively above, but I would remind people we are here to discuss whether an article about Robert Young is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, not to exchange personal opinions about Young's integrity or credibility. Let's stick to the facts guys. JKSD93 (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For whatever reason Ollie chose to import comments made elsewhere into this discussion, so they are responded to below. EEng (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Remember, you asked.
 * No apology is needed for calling longevity-related topics here at WP a "vortex of crazies". It surely is -- or I should say was until ArbCom took things in hand -- and this is well known to anyone who was here for the party. From your edit history, you weren't here so you may be forgiven for not knowing this, but don't take my word for it -- read what Arbcom said here --
 * WikiProject World's Oldest People is urged to seek experienced Wikipedia editors who will act as mentors to the project and assist members in improving their editing and their understanding of Wikipedia policies and community norms.
 * As for Young specifically, a good introduction is this discussion in which he describes himself as "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." Four years later  Arbcom found:
 *  has engaged in a variety of inappropriate conduct, including personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith ; sustained edit-warring ; misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground ; and inappropriate canvassing .
 * For the full jaw-dropping compendium of Young's bizarre behavior over the years see Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity/Evidence. Particularly illuminating discussions are this one and this one (the second being the Goossenaerts discussion Blade linked a few posts above -- highly recommended).

Like I said -- you asked. EEng (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Rejuvenation Research is indeed a fringe vanity journal. Again, no apology needed. And this is what Blade of the Northern Lights meant about this matter being at an intersection involving quackery -- the field of "Anti-Aging Medicine" (so called -- there's no such recognized specialty) is rife with quackery. No one's said, nor is anyone saying, that Young is himself a quack, merely that the inexplicable intensity of feeling that has surrounded many WP discussions on longevity are undoubtedly partly due to such interests, whether the direct participants know it or not.
 * Go ahead and list additional publications by Young beyond those on his Linkedin page. But please -- first check (a) whether they're published in Rejuvenation Research or other fringe/vanity journals; (b) whether he's a primary author or one of eight; (c) what kind of citation count it gets not counting Young and his coauthors citing themselves.
 * Not a whole lot to add to that, except that as stated this problem crops up everywhere in this topic. See here, here, the second Goossenaerts AfD, and here for various degrees of additional nastiness. Not to mention this, an incident where he and his Wikipedia followers prematurely declared someone dead because "the GRG" and told people on-wiki to e-mail him for evidence; it ultimately required both family members of the person and outside intervention on Wikipedia to correct this. The result is the giant walled garden we see today, which includes this article. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 02:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-meaningful academic standing, doesn't quite make the grade of substantial coverage of Young by reliable sources. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  01:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

*Slightest possible keep more or less as per DGG. By which I mean if the useful content related to him and his work can be reasonably covered in any other existing article, turn this into a redirect and do so. John Carter (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Question - has anything changed since the last time this article went up for deletion? That is to say, is it just the same old crap but more of it? Rklawton (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Illuminating question. Since the article was deleted in 2007, two articles mentioning Young have appeared:
 * This one in 2009; the entirety of its text on Young is this:
 * Robert Young says he believes that age is just a number -- no matter how high it gets. The aptly named Young has spent 20 years studying the older set and maintains a database of verified supercentenarians -- people age 110 and older. Young's work came into focus recently with the Jan. 19 death of Beatrice Farve of Brunswick, who at 113 was listed by Young as the second-oldest person on Earth. ...
 * What began as a hobby when Young was 12 has blossomed into a career as a senior claims researcher with the Gerontology Research Group and senior gerontology consultant with Guinness World Records. He never met Farve, but Young has met 17 supercentenarians, including two Mississippi women who changed his perspective on living a long life. ...
 * People who live a long life can remain vibrant and active, Young said. Science can extend the life spans of organisms such as yeast and flatworms, he said, but has yet to unlock the secret to human longevity. When that happens, Young said, "it will be the biggest breakthrough in human history, save possibly the advent of the nuclear age." 
 * This one in 2010:
 * When Robert Young was little, he found himself wishing he had gotten to know the elderly people in his life before they died. "I wanted to meet them and stay around them first, because they would be passing away first," Mr. Young recalls. The younger people, he would get to later. Now Mr. Young's childhood inclination has turned into his profession, as the gerontologist tracks the world's oldest people for a variety of research groups. His work and that of other researchers' has helped to create a new branch of demography: Statistics about the world's best agers. ... Now Mr. Young works for Guinness as its head consultant on checking such claims, and also verifies claims for GRG. ...
 * About 800 million people, or less than one-eighth of the world's population, live in places that, at the turn of last century, had birth records reliable enough to be trusted, according to Mr. Young.
 * EEng (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean articles specifically about Robert Young I assume? Because there are hundreds of newspapers/magazines that have mentioned Robert Young as the head Gerontologist of Guinness World Records and their goto guy for information since 2007. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean articles actually saying something about Young beyond, "Old Person X died this morning, said Robert Young, Senior Claims Investigator for the Gerontology Research Group". EEng (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What utter nonsense.
 * The article as it stood immediately prior to deletion in 2007
 * The article as it stands now
 * The article as it stood prior to nine references being deleted by... you
 * Hundreds of articles mentioning Young published since the deletion not cited to avoid redundancy
 * A bit more than 'two' new articles any way you look at it. CBD 06:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of the nine references deleted were trivial mentions of Young obviously quoted from press releases e.g.
 * She was 115 years, 220 days old, said Robert Young, a senior consultant for gerontology for Guinness World Records.
 * Senior database administrator for the national Gerontology Research Group, Robert Young, confirmed that Johnson was the oldest verified American man, although there are several women known to be older.
 * Another was a link to a conference program from 2005 showing that Young had given a 30-minute talk, used to support the statement that Young "lectures" (present tense) on age research. EEng (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Per EEng - no evidence of notable academic standing or WP:GNG. OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect I think hit the right idea here. From the above it is abundantly clear that Young fails WP:ACADEMIC by a mile. EEng's detailed analyses have also made it clear that notability under GNG is marginal, at best. Given that whatever notability there is, is related to Young being the spokesperson of the Gerontology Research Group, I think that redirecting this to that article, adding a single phrase to that article ("It's spokesperson is Robert Young" or something like that, with the one AP source that gives a more than in-passing mention of Young) would seem to be the best solution. --Randykitty (talk) 6:29 am, Today (UTC−4)
 * I think this is an appropriate solution. EEng (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still at "weak keep" so wouldn't strongly object to a redirect. I think a stub is a better solution for readers (because I think there would genuinely be interest in the guy) but I won't die in a ditch over it.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 22:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't take this wrong, but we only care if you die in a ditch if you're 110+ years old. EEng (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha ha. Well put.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect per Randykitty. I don't think Young and the GNG have independent notability from each other, and the GNG seems more appropriate for an umbrella article. I have struck my earlier "weak keep" !vote. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 *  Redirect  (changed from Delete) per Randykitty to Gerontology Research Group, with a sentence naming his as spokesperson, citing Bialik or Conwell. Many thanks to Randykitty for proposing a good way out of this subjective squabble. FourViolas (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Striking duplicate "redirect" vote. Cunard (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect per above editors, or delete. I'm just not seeing significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. There seems to be little extra material compared to the previous AfD. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 22:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect per those immediately above, because being an employee (even a relatively prominent one) of a notable organisation does not make a person independently notable. Relentlessly (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with a redirect. Randykitty's redirect and "ad[d] a single phrase to that article" comment is imprudent. The article currently provides several paragraphs of sourced information about the subject: "Born in 1974 or 1975, Young was raised by his mother in a single-parent household and has four siblings. He told the Chicago Tribune in 2006: 'We were so poor, a trip to McDonald's once a year was considered a treat.' In the mid-1990s, he lived in Florida with his father for two years before he moved back to Atlanta in 1997. He worked for Kroger and Pizza Hut and in 1999 enrolled as a part-time student at Georgia Perimeter College. Around that time, he became a volunteer at the Gerontology Research Group, an organization that follows the world's oldest people. As a young child who was first drawn to the subject at age 12, Young regretted not having substantial relationships with the older people in his life who had died. As an adult, Young became intrigued by supercentenarians' longevity, having become awed by a University of Georgia study about them. After gaining experience in the gerontology field, he began to receive monetary compensation for his research. In 2002, Young started helping Jerry Friedman locate and catalog the old people in Friedman's 2005 book Earth's Elders: The Wisdom of the World's Oldest People. In a 2006 interview with the Chicago Tribune, Friedman said, 'It was primarily because of [Young] I was able to do this book.' Young verifies people's ages for Guinness World Records and Gerontology Research Group. He does the verifications by reviewing documents from baptisms and census data, as well as newspaper articles. Young attends the birthday parties of verified supercentenarians where he is 'treated like family' according to the Los Angeles Times. Carl Bialik of The Wall Street Journal wrote that Young's 'work and that of other researchers' has helped to create a new branch of demography: Statistics about the world's best agers.'  He attended Georgia State University." This is encyclopedic biographical information sourced to the high quality sources The Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Redirecting this article is a very poor option because there would be only two choices: <ol><li>Erase the enyclopedic biographical information quoted above.</li><li>Move all of the information to the Gerontology Research Group article where it would dominate that article and be undue weight.</li></ol> It is far better to have this material be in Robert Young's own article rather than the organization's article to avoid WP:UNDUE weight. Biographical information about Young's early life and early interest in gerontology belongs in Young's article, not the Gerontology Research Group's article. Notability says: "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." It is not credible to say that this article from the Chicago Tribune, this article from The Wall Street Journal, this article from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and this article from the Los Angeles Times do not "addres[s] the topic directly and in detail". If the sources did not provide Young with "more than a trivial mention", it would be impossible to write a 301-word "biography" section that does not use original research and is sourced only to reliable sources.  Many editors seem to be substituting their own judgment for that of high quality reliable sources that deem him notable enough to provide "significant coverage" about. Or they have strong negative feelings about the subject's past actions on Wikipedia. I strongly agree with this comment from  and this comment from .  Cunard (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Cunard where are these " high quality reliable sources" as we've seen no evidence of any such sources so far. If you have them please produce them as nothing we've seen so far approaches even a satisfactory source, let alone one of "high quality". -  Gallo glass  00:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And it is also worth noting that the material which is sourced can in many cases be seen as being basically indiscriminate collection of information. I would love to see how anyone can say his working for Kroger and Pizza Hut is even tangentially related to his notability as an old age researcher. The simple fact that minor, sometimes inconsequential and even trivial, information can be gathered really isn't a solid basis for claiming notability, given the wide amount of information from various sources on virtually everyone living today. John Carter (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No matter where they're published, sources must be evaluated in context for the assertions they make, and there's a big difference between news reporting and human-interest puff-pieces. which is what these are. "We were so poor ... lived in Florida with his father... worked for Kroger and Pizza Hut ... became a volunteer ... drawn to the subject at age 12 ... regretted ... intrigued ... awed ... attends the birthday parties" -- this is lightweight background, self-reported by the subject. While some of it (at least, that which doesn't report his internal thoughts and emotional states at various ages) could in principle be verified independently, they clearly weren't. Nor do we expect them to be, because the discerning reader understands the difference (and here we return to my original point) between news reporting and unverified human-interest puffery. In this sense they can be treated as reliable only marginally and with great caution (e.g. all these statements should be attributed in the article—‌"Young says ... according to Young" and so on). When, as here, pretty much everything available must be qualified this way, then there is indeed an almost complete lack of reliable sources. EEng (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * John Carter, Notability is applicable. The information is encyclopedic because it provides biographical background about Young's early life. It does not need to relate to his notability. If high quality reliable sources—Chicago Tribune, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and the Los Angeles Times—deem that information worthy of reporting, then that biographical information is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. The details show Young's path from being raised by a single mother to becoming a consultant for Guinness World Records. This is news reporting—not puffery—because the sources do not use promotional or sensational language. Identifying reliable sources says: "'News reporting' from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)." Clearly, the Chicago Tribune, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and the Los Angeles Times are all very well-established, reputable outlets. The articles mostly use "statements of fact" for Young's biographical details, so per the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources guideline those should be considered facts until or unless contradicted by other reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * While you're right that notability doesn't limit article content, the opposite extreme—‌"If high quality reliable sources ... deem that information worthy of reporting, then that biographical information is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia"—‌is equally invalid, because (WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE) "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details ... merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This is, in fact, one of the best examples of a subject to which WP:NOPAGE applies that I've ever seen—‌I highly recommend that my esteemed fellow editors give it a read. EEng (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Information about Young's upbringing and previous employment is not indiscriminate information. That is standard information for a Wikipedia biography. In what way does including this information violate WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE? WP:NOPAGE says (bolding and italics added for emphasis): "When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic. Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable, and not merely upon personal likes or dislikes. Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia, and so the amount of content and details should not be limited by concerns about space availability." A merge to another article will cause standard biographical information about Young's upbringing and past employment to be lost, which is why, in my editorial judgment, this should be a standalone article. A merge will not lead to "more context"; it will lead to "less context" about Young's upbringing and past employment. Cunard (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 01:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Gerontology Research Group. The rather small amount of material directly related to this subject's claims to notability can easily be included there without any weight considerations. John Carter (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - The arguments that the article should be deleted (or 'redirected') for lack of notable information about the subject and 'weak' sources might be more compelling if people were not also actively removing notable information and sources from the article. This is how the article stood at the start of the discussion. Can anyone really argue that removing, "... frequently cited by the news media as an authority on age verification", and the references provided to confirm that fact, 'improved' the article? It was somehow beneficial to remove one of the most notable things about Young? Likewise, I continue to see claims that Young is only mentioned in passing and there is no news coverage of the man himself... despite having already provided references demonstrating that this just isn't true. AfD is not a vote. Arguments need to be consistent with Wikipedia policy... and reality. CBD 12:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Removing, "frequently cited by the news media as an authority on age verification" indeed improved the article, because none of the four sources cited for that statement refer to him as an "authority on age verification". Here's what they actually said (each bullet being the entirety of what a particular source said about Young):
 * "Her successor looks set to be Emiliano Mercado del Toro of Puerto Rico, who is 115, according to Robert Young, adviser to Guinness World Records."
 * "In Benkner's case, the Gerontology Research Group's senior claims investigator, Robert Young, of Atlanta, verified her age from an 1889 birth certificate, 1890 baptismal certificate and 1908 marriage license, among other records ... Young, the researcher who visited Benkner at a birthday party last Sunday, said she appears robust compared to some of the other supercentenarians he's met."
 * "Emiliano Mercado del Toro, 115, of Puerto Rico is now expected assume the title of world's oldest person, said Robert Young, a Guinness researcher."
 * " 'She spent the last 20 years living with her daughter and son-in-law, and generally enjoyed good health,' Robert Young, adviser to Guinness World Records, told Associated Press. 'She was in good shape until she had a bout of pneumonia and she died unexpectedly. Her family was expecting to have a 117th birthday party,' Mr Young said ... Capovilla's likely successor as oldest woman is an American, Elizabeth Bolden of Memphis, Tennessee, said Mr Young."
 * As mentioned by others here, even 1000 instances of your speaking for a notable organization doesn't make you notable, nor does looking at a birth certificate someone's family sent you and doing the subtraction. As for the three links you provide at the end of your post, one is invisible behind a login and the other two are the same ones discussed here over and over: non-news human interest based almost entirely on unverifiable statements made by Young himself. EEng (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement that articles use the exact same words as their sources. Even if there were, that wouldn't be justification for removing notable information from articles, only for rewording it. It is not at all inaccurate to say that 'news media cite Young as an authority on age verification'... there is overwhelming evidence to support that they do. Similarly, removal of the sentence calling him a "gerontology researcher" because those exact words weren't used (though, in fact, they were in the AJC article which is now behind a paywall ) is more than a bit ridiculous... given his work for the "Gerontology Research Group". Likewise, it doesn't matter how many times the articles about Young himself have been dismissed out of hand/based on unfounded (not to mention OR and BLP violating) assumptions that the information all came from Young himself without any verification by the news media that published them... they clearly exist, and thus claims that there is no such coverage of Young are demonstrably false. CBD 14:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I cannot help but notice that there seems to be a bit of a straw-man argument in the above comment. What matters here is not whether there is any coverage at all, as the above comment seems to be making. What matters is whether the subject meets WP:GNG, regarding whether the subject has received significant coverage in press, and to quote that page, ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail." I have yet to see any particular sources which address this individual in detail. WP:NOPAGE also raises several significant points about whether a topic is sufficiently covered for a standalone article, and, from what I've seen, I haven't seen anything to indicate it is. John Carter (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The subject easily meets WP:GNG. Sources have been provided numerous times. As I wrote above: "It is not credible to say that this article from the Chicago Tribune, this article from The Wall Street Journal, this article from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and this article from the Los Angeles Times do not 'addres[s] the topic directly and in detail'." Cunard (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No matter how many times you keep re-posting these links, there is still is no "Significant coverage" of the subject as required under WP:GNG. These were rejected as not significant 8 years ago at the first AfD and is still barely mention the subject now. You need to find some new coverage that actually give "Significant coverage" and cease repeating the same mantra that, quite frankly is becoming insulting to anyone who reads them with an IQ above room temperature.   -  Gallo glass  22:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage is simply more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. With about half the editors posting here feeling there is minimum GNG for Mr Young, it is you who are actually insulting a good many wikipedians. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Significant coverage is simply more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" is only part of the requirement, and I shouldn't have to remind you that the number of editors on each "side" isn't what matters. These sources have been analyzed in full earlier in this debate. Putting aside popcorn quotes from Young such as "It will be the biggest breakthrough in human history, save possibly the advent of the nuclear age" -- and being quoted isn't a basis for GNG at all -- almost everything else is unverifiable self-reported interview material of the "We were so poor ... regretted ... intrigued ... awed" type discussed earlier. Despite what you keep saying, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content". There's no way for even WSJ to tell whether Young was, in fact, awed by supercentenarians when he was a teenager. EEng (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That may be true but I was responding to Gallo's wording of "significant coverage" and his IQ remark. For that my last post was dead on. That aside, if you're quoted enough it sure as heck can make you notable. People like the Earthquake Lady have made a living out of simply giving quotes to newspapers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You really need to know a great deal more about Journalism then if you think simply being quoted makes you notable. -  Gallo glass  00:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Galloglass is correct. Kate Hutton ("the earthquake lady") is routinely quoted as an academic expert per ACADEMIC, which is quite different from issuing press releases. EEng (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Significant coverage is simply more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" is only part of the requirement – which other part of the Notability requirements are you hinting at? Regarding WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: Under your extremely restrictive interpretation of policy, most biographies would have to be severely trimmed. It would forbid the featured article Hillary Rodham Clinton from having sentences like: "Her mother wanted her to have an independent, professional career, and her father, otherwise a traditionalist, felt that his daughter's abilities and opportunities should not be limited by gender." Who could know what her mother and father wanted? This information must be gleaned from interviews with the people involved. That Young told The Wall Street Journal that he was awed by elderly people when he was a youth is sufficient to satisfy Verifiability. This is not an exceptional claim (Verifiability), so I see no need to question it if The Wall Street Journal doesn't. Cunard (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Additional provisions of GNG that apply here include:
 * "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. [footnote continues] Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, [etc etc and...] minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.
 * I don't have the sources used in the Clinton article available, but one imagines that her mother's and father's social attitudes and so on would be supported, in a serious biography, by letters, recollections by multiple persons, documented actions in their personal lives, and so on -- not just their own statements.
 * I think these issues have been thoroughly ventilated now, and if you wish to have the last word, be my guest. EEng (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to GRG, but not until some fair-minded editor inserts a sourced sentence into the GRG article about Mr. Young's connection. Without such a sentence, the redirect would be sorta inscrutable. David in DC (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done -- subject of course to the approval of my esteemed fellow editors.  EEng (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have a proposal. There is another article entitled "Extreme longevity tracking". If this article is not strong enough as stand-alone, then one-paragraph mini-bio could be merged into the "Extreme longevity tracking" article. It's the content, what it the most important. What matters is what effect Robert Young's career is having on the public knowledge of how long can humans live. Such addition would also make the Extreme longevity tracking article more comprehensive. Waenceslaus (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , I think the sources about Robert Young are enough to meet Notability. Would you review the Chicago Tribune, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and the Los Angeles Times links I posted above and determine whether they provide "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Cunard (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2015 (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.