Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of senescence research


 * 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 keep. If anyone wants to continue the discussion as to whether this should be renamed or merged elsewhere it can be brought up on its talk page. J04n(talk page) 16:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Timeline of senescence research

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Large amount of original research, idiosyncratic opinions about "breakthroughs" and such, supported by primary sources. Also containing inaccuracies (e.g., group selection is not a "theory of aging"). Randykitty (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree these sorts of lists shouldn't exist, as they inherently rely on a personal interpretation of events. A well-written article that follows coverage from reliable sources, on the other hand could potentially be of great value to the encyclopaedia. Best, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  13:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Presuming the issue is with this being a timeline of research, rather than with the subject itself or with timelines themselves, it seems what would be needed are sources about the overarching subject which provide guidance about the sorts of things that should be included. There are indeed primary sources here, which is problematic, as yes, that would be original research to compile one's own selection of "greatest hits" but there are also citations like History of Research into Ageing/Senescence,  A History of Life-Extensionism In The Twentieth Century, etc. which suggest it's not entirely reliant on primary sources. It also doesn't take more than a quick search to find plenty of other reliable sources with their own timelines on senescence/aging, which is a pretty typical standard for stand-alone lists on Wikipedia. I'll also add that this was created hours before the nomination (I deprodded it about an hour an a half after it was created), so I don't see why these aren't issues that couldn't possibly be addressed or even explained to the relatively new user who wrote the article before rushing to delete it. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Nobody is rushing here. AFD (and PROD as well) provide a whole week to show a subject is notable. --Randykitty (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well yes, but having your first article greeted immediately with an AfD notice is certainly a bit WP:BITEy. A novice editor does not know the timescales of the various WP processes. Tigraan Click here to contact me
 * In my estimation, an editor who has this as their very first edit, is bound to be familiar with AfD, too. --Randykitty (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Tigraan Click here to contact me 09:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * keep as the issues mentioned-Large amount of original research, idiosyncratic opinions ... supported by primary sources ...can be fixed...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello. Here Wikisanchez. I created the page. I have no internet until tomorrow. Please be patient. I'll fix the problems as soon as possible. Greetings from Argentina.Wikisanchez (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisanchez (talk • contribs) 00:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Ozzie plus some of the issues are already being fixed by Wikisanchez. DeVerm (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Senescence or move to History of senescence and convert to prose. This isn't really a good subject for a list, but it would make either a good history section at the main article or possibly a split, depending on how long the prose turns out to be. ~ RobTalk 02:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please Randykitty at least point at the presumably unreliable sources. There are over fifty references on the page. Wikisanchez (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm no, that is not the way it works. You do not put tons of sources and then demand every editor to read in detail every of them before listening to them. A couple of good references is enough to keep, thousands of bad ones have no effect. Tigraan Click here to contact me 09:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Only a few examples: uroworldindata.org, Naturalpedia, several press releases, etc. --Randykitty (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ourworldindata.org is supported by Oxford University. Why wouldn't it be reliable? Wikisanchez (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Supported" can mean many things (I guess here it means "is the web host"), it does not mean "exercizes editorial oversight". Here as Max Roser is the sole editor of the website, hence it is as self-published as you can get. Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think what is asking isn't "will you do the work of going through the article so I don't have to" but "give me something to go on". If someone doesn't have experience navigating primary vs. secondary sources or Wikipedia's policies on synthesis and reliable sources, a phrase like "idiosyncratic opinions about 'breakthroughs' and such, supported by primary sources" might sound like a desirable thing, so it can be challenging to actually make meaningful improvements (at least the targeted sort that would satisfy critics). He should get to know those policies and dig through the sources to try to figure it out, of course (nobody should get special treatment), but more examples would probably be helpful.
 * Of course, I may be ascribing a thought process to Wikisanchez that isn't actually applicable :)
 * @Wikisanchez: Just to summarize a point that may not itself be totally clear: with an article like a timeline, citing studies and other primary research is ok, but those sources do not themselves justify including something. There's always a question of "is this important enough to include in a timeline" -- and answering that without a source is original research. In other words, the sources have the science and the sources also tell us what science is important. If an item in the timeline doesn't have a source independent of the researchers themselves that effectively says "this is important", it shouldn't be in there (even if you know it's important). Another point is that stricter rules can apply to sourcing for anything related to biomedical content on Wikipedia. WP:MEDRS is the guideline for that. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For example, I removed the last two entries in the timeline. This discovery may be important, but we need a source saying it's important, and we should never be citing press releases. This organization may be important, but we need something saying it's sufficiently important within the timeline of senescence research, and again should not be citing a press release. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Could someone lay out the argument for why a timeline is better than a history section written in prose? I'm just not seeing the benefit. I mentioned this with my vote above, but I wanted to specifically encourage replies to this point, because I haven't seen any counter-argument. ~ RobTalk 14:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that would be better, but I don't think that means we have to set other editors' priorities if they don't agree. Ultimately, if we had a perfect array of articles on the subject, I think there would be room for a timeline. We may think the article should take priority, but some people like the timeline format. You could write the history section and someone could use it to build a timeline or someone could build a timeline and you could use it to write the history section. I don't think there should be an absolute requirement that one come before the other, depending on what people are into and how they think. E.g. writing prose might be prohibitively difficult to someone who can still contribute by putting together a timeline, or someone's disability (or just different way of thinking) may make more sense out of a visually linear and table-based timeline than reading prose. I don't know, and I'm obviously not saying someone who prefers timelines must have a disability or something -- just saying I don't see a compelling reason to say "do prose instead". That said, if people don't think this timeline is appropriate on its own merits, merging may be a perfectly reasoanble route -- but I think it should be evaluated on its own, not in relation to the status of other articles. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I covered events with secondary sources and removed some unreliable sources. I left ouroworldindata.org as reference providing it's well covered by media. The article is not exhaustive, partly due to the large amount of theories on aging, but most of the popular theories (those with high frequency on the internet) are included on this timeline.01:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Wikisanchez (talk)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   16:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - The topic seems notable although some of the sources don't really fulfil WP:RS. The amount of general information shows that the topic is verifiable and encyclopaedic.  As to the question of using pros, I much prefer pros myself but this timeline format is understandable and, for me, is well done.  - Pmedema (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Rename and restructure as History of senescence. I have to say that the scattering of pre-20th century philosophical thoughts does not site well beside the account of the modern development of the subject.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Those philosophical thoughts were the science of that time. They were in charge when modern science didn't exist.Wikisanchez (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect - We don't need this, and putting things into a highly subjective timeline form rather than using standard prose isn't helpful. We already have: Life_extension. That whole page needs work, and that particular section is a particularly notable example. Basically anything here in this present page that's notable should be uprooted and planted over there. The stuff in this present page that isn't notable, such as the puffy press releases being used as citations, should just be gotten rid of.
 * Also going to note that if someone objects that historical research into life extension isn't the same thing as historical research into aging, then they're making a distinction without a strong difference in history. Individuals studied how exactly aging happens because of their interest in improving human lives. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of this can also go to Life_extension and Life_extension too. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2016 (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 and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Merging a page isn't the same thing as outright just deleting it, so I tweaked my comment above to be clear. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Sure, this page has issues, but WP:BEFORE really applies here. The unrealiable sources and the heavy reliance on primary sources can easily be fixed. What matters is the information is verified, and that the subject has beyond all doubt received enough coverage to meet the requirements at WP:GNG.  Omni Flames  let's talk about it  08:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * BEFORE would apply if I had argued a lack of notability. That is not the case, I basically argue that WP:TNT applies. --Randykitty (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2016 (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.