Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:30, 7 November 2007

Robert Young (longevity claims researcher)

Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

• Articles for deletion/Robert Young (gerontologist)

This article was nominated for deletion back in August, and the AfD was closed as "no consensus". It seems to me that it has not improved much since then, and that the previous discussion may not have covered all the problems.

First, this article was created by its subject Ryoung122 (talk · contribs), who has continued to edit it since the AfD closed. I was drawn to the subject by the orphaned category he created for it, Category:Supercentenarian trackers, and by the subsequent correspondence with Ryoung122, which involved (inter alia) spamming irrelevant and badly formatted-links in large quantities. Those things are not relevant to a deletion decision, but the diffuse nature of the material prompted me to examine this article more closely, in particular the claims to notability.

I don't see that the references provided come anywhere close to establishing notability:

1. http://www.grg.org/Adams/E.HTM lists Young as the validator of some supercetenarians. It's a primary source, irrelevant to notability
2. http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwger/about/admin.html is a list of the Administration & Staff of the Gerontology Institute. It lists Young a Graduate Research Assistant, which is not a notable position, and as a primary source it's irrelevant to notability
3. http://www.demogr.mpg.de/calendar/files/23312.3112487793-Workshop%20Program.pdf is simply a list of conference participants, and irrelevant to notability (most academics participate in lots of conferences)
4. http://www.supercentenarian-research-foundation.org/organization.htm lists young as a memner of the committee of the Supercentenarian Research Foundation. Not a notable role, and another primary source
5. http://www.grg.org/Adams/AA.HTM doesn't mention Young

The external links are little better:

1. The first of the kinks to mention Young is the Yahoogroup which he runs, but that's not a WP:RS reliable source
2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5293436.stm is an article about a supercentenarian, not about Young. Young is not mentioned until paragraph 11, and then with four sentences of quotes.
3. http://www.globalaging.org/health/us/2006/longevityclues.htm offers substantive coverage of Young. It's a 1,0000-word article in a newspaper from his home state, about the work of Young and his colleague
4. http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/rej.2005.8.274?cookieSet=1&journalCode=rej is a list of supercentenarians, which doesn't mention Young
5. http://biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/content/full/59/6/B579/TA1 is a journal to which I don't have access, but is presumably to a paper written or co-authored by Young. Irrelevant to notability
6. http://www.demografie.de/calendar/files/51736.8836975098-Workshop%20Program.pdf is a conference schedule which presented a paper by Young

And that's it. He's a 33-year-old graduate student who has given papers at conferences, which is non-notable. Otherwise he gets a few quotes in a BBC article and one more substantive article in his hometown's newspaper, and he claims to be a consultant to a few outside bodies (though we have no independent sources for those claims). That's perhaps slightly more than the norm for an academic, but it seems to me to fall well short of WP:BIO, which looks for such points as a "credible independent biography" or "Widespread coverage over time in the media such as the BBC, The Times or other reliable sources".

There has been three months since the last AfD, in which the subject himself has added references. If in that time even the article's subject hasn't found evidence to bring the article close to meeting WP:BIO's requirements, I think it's safe to conclude that the evidence probably doesn't exist. Delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The above comments include several incorrect statements. However, User BHG decided to delete where I pointed out when her statements were not correct. Therefore I suggest you all check out the source links for yourself, and see who is telling the truth. Have a nice day.Ryoung122 21:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: there is far more material out there about me than about Keeley Dorsey. Further, I also created aticles for my rivals as well. That says a lot.Ryoung122 13:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 05:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The above user has already been involved in the Category:supercentenarian trackers debate and this nomination appears to be a conflict-of-interest motivation. I also note that the nominator has stated that she has no interest in the subject which makes the nomination biased. Further, it is traditional for the nominator NOT to vote in their own nomination. In response, I'm going to do the same thing:

• Keep. There is only one Guinness World Records and only one 'Senior Consultant for Gerontology.' You can find me on page 2 of the 2007 or 2008 editions, as well as other parts of the book. A search for "Robert+Young+gerontology" returns 490,000 hits; EVERY ONE of the front-page hits is me. Not only that, not a single front-page hit is for a commercial products, but an educational or scientific one.

Further, the article originally started as a way to counter fictitious age claims, such as Mary Ramsey Wood. The original nominators nominated the article for deletion in response to an attempt by myself to get Mary Ramsey Wood's article to reflect the obvious truth that her age claim was not credible. After heated debate, it was eventually acknowledged that I was right and now the article reflects reality.

One of the main tenets of Misplaced Pages is that you can click on a 'wikilink' for 'more information.' Given that I am cross-referenced with several other articles, it stands to reason to have the information organized in a way that one can find out about similar cases from each other. Ironically, by linking these aricles, BHG (originally deleting the category 'Erdos numbers') found a link to 'supercentenarian trackers' as well. I do not believe that deletionists that go around deleting educational categories such as 'Erdos numbers' while leaving gobs of gratuitous information about not notable people like Keeley Dorsey or Sunnydale, California are really helping Misplaced Pages. One of the reasons Misplaced Pages has not found greater success is that it is remade in the image of the masses, instead of dealing with what is really important. What can be more important than resarch into the human life span, in an attempt to identify what limits us to a mere 122 years?Ryoung122 13:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung, with reality, you need to properly portray reality if you want any credibility. Note that the person who put this up for AFD the first time was not involved in the Wood article at all, whatsoever, not even a minor edit. Not even one word, character, or revision on the article or its talk page. Period. Aboutmovies 19:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable enough really. Alberon 09:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Very strong keep He is notable regardless. Extremely sexy 12:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per BHG's arguments. Fails WP:BIO. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: User Kittybrewster is a frequent contributor to BHG's talk page:

Appears to be conflict-of-interest and vote-stacking. We see no analysis, rationale, or attempt to consider both points of view (at least, BHG did that). I can't see how you can claim 'fails' when I have already posted the proof. Apparently for some, this is a 'pissing contest' and not really related to an objective approach.Ryoung122 14:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Yes I am a fan of BHG. That led me here. Additionally I was irritated by the flood of protest, commenting and editing by Mr Young. Irrelevant to the point that this fails WP:BIO. In any event it is for the closing admin to decide the merits of the arguments. - Kittybrewster ☎ 16:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but rename the parenthetical part; clearly notable--many news stories. JJL 15:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable list keeper. The lists he keeps may be notable, the publications he keeps them for may be notable, that does not make him notable. ---- WebHamster 18:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom and previous AFD, not enough WP:RS used as sources that have substantial coverage required under WP:BIO. Aboutmovies 18:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment:

Precisely as I said, we see user: Aboutmovies started the Mary Ramsey Wood article:

(cur) (last) 00:11, 26 July 2007 Aboutmovies (Talk | contribs) (4,445 bytes) (created, feel free to expand with sourced information)

Which was a source of the prior debate. Hence, I stand by my comments and they are backed up by checking the facts. Ryoung122 21:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The article could certainly use some cleanup and some outside contributors, but crikey, how many sources do you need? It appears that nearly the first three pages of Google results that are returned for the search terms that Mr. Young used are about or refer to him. Just because the sources are not cited in the article (yet) does not mean the article is deletable. (See WP:PROBLEM.) I would agree with the suggestion that the page be renamed, perhaps to Robert Young (gerontology). I would also suggest to Mr. Young that he back off from editing his article for awhile and solicit the assistance of some outside editors. While it's not forbidden to edit an article about yourself, it's frowned upon to varying degrees as a conflict of interest. Personally, I have no problem with someone working on an article about themself or about something they're connected to, as long as they remain neutral and provide reliable sources for any statements or claims that are disputable. It's generally not a good idea to actually create an article about yourself as Mr. Young seems to have done, but what's done is done, and it actually doesn't seem that he's done a half bad job of keeping it/making it fairly neutral. I would also like to remind the COI police that additions of facts such as birthdates, places of employment, places of residence, names of spouses/children and the like that are added by the subject of an article are both acceptable to be added by the subject and do not typically require a source per WP:AUTO:

  "In clear-cut cases, it is permissible to edit pages connected to yourself. So, you can revert vandalism; but of course it has to be simple, obvious vandalism and not a content dispute. Similarly, you should feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself, such as marital status, current employer, place of birth, and so on. (Note it on the talk page.) Be prepared that if the fact has different interpretations, others will edit it."

I mention this for the sole reason that there seemed to be a dispute over the inclusion of the statement that Mr. Young is a researcher at GSU without a source, and then once a source was added to that effect, it was then poo-poohed as trivial. It seems that everyone here needs to review the core policies at work here, and use a little common sense. LaMenta3 18:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the nomination? I assessed all the sources for evidence of notability, which is the issue here, and of the GSU link I wrote "not a notable position, and as a primary source it's irrelevant to notability". References are needed to verify facts, but not all of them are releavnt to notabilty (see WP:NOTE). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Although renaming the title may be relevant. The GRG website officially lists him as "GRG Chief Claims Investigator" on http://grg.org/Adams/Tables.htm as well as grg.org. I think the problem is when you guys talk about 'nobility,' you refer to nobility on the Internet, such as through Google. While I think Robert is most notable for having a 1-of-a-kind job at Guinness, his name can be found on the Guinness books, rather than the official guinnessworldrecords.com site. So the question remains: can someone have nobility off of the Internet but have nobility through books? Robert has plenty of on-line "Internet" nobility on GRG pages and hundreds of news reports, particularly supercentenarian birthdays, but lacks the Internet nobility through an official Guinness site. Anyways, I don't think Misplaced Pages should be exclusive to sources on the Internet. I believe if there is a book out there, it can be used as a reference on Misplaced Pages even if the data of the book does not appear on the Internet. Neal 19:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC).

Of course notability can be sourced from dead wood sources, many articles are sourced in such a way. Additionally the number of sources isn't necessarily an indicator either, it's the quality of the source that counts whether it be net related or via other means. As regards the 1-of-a-kind job, well that doesn't necessarily denote notability either. My uncle used to be the only rat catcher for the local council but I rather doubt he's entitled to an article based on that. Regardless of Young's job title at Guinness he is still only actually an editor when it comes down to it and the world is full of them. He's a researcher and list maker, that doesn't confer notability regardless of the subject he's researching and making lists of. ---- WebHamster 19:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: do we say that Scott Boras is not notable because he is an agent? Moreso, 'just an editor' seems quite ridiculous. I am in fact an organizer and creator, not simply an 'editor.' That is why I have positions in multiple organizations including the SRF, GRG, SSA, NECS, etc. When people wanted an 'expert' they turned to me, not the other way around:

http://www.nyc-plus.com/nyc18/oldold.html

“Here I am, a retired photographer. What can I do to bring a little more cheer into these people’s lives? Maybe take some pictures that they can send to one another. When I got home I went to the Internet and Googled the oldest person in America, and came up with a John McMorran, down in Florida, who was 111.

“Then I found a man, a demographer in Atlanta, Georgia, named Robert Young. I thought: I’ll photograph some of the oldest people in America and put it together as a traveling photo show. But he was basically dismissive. Said: ‘I wouldn’t bother.’ That was, so to speak, a call to arms for me.

“Shortly after, I found about this 111-year-old woman in Massachusetts: Ann Smith. You couldn’t get more apple-pie than that. And what a feisty, very sharp, completely-take-charge woman she was. As a photographer in advertising and later television, I was always completely in control, setting up lights, giving orders, whatever. Here this Ann Smith took complete control. After the first roll of film I went to put in a second. She said: ‘That’s enough – you’re finished.’ No one talks to me like that ”

But Ann Smith did, and he loved it.

“She was the first person I’d ever photographed who could tell me what it was like to live in three centuries. My first experience with someone who’s what’s called a super-centarian, 110 or more years old. I said to myself: You better start taking notes. There are 300 to 400 such validatable people – on a planet of, what is it, 700 billion of us?”

Friedman got in touch with Robert Young again.

So, how 'notable' does one have to be? Someone that had never met me before did a Google search, found me, and hired me to work on a project that became a book and an exhibit at the United Nations.

But, again this isn't just about me. I note that the AFD nominator has run around, nominating lots of pertinent articles for deletion, sourcing, etc. that are related to this. I attempted to be polite and even invited USER BHG to tell me about her 110-year-old relative. The response was nominating my article for deletion and absolutely no attempt was made at finding common ground, reconciliation, etc.

Just the facts: Mary Ramsey Wood turned out to be 97, not 120. User Aboutmovies didn't like it. Tough. Attempting to delete my article is not just about me, it's about miseducating the public as to how long the human life span is, how long people really live. Well I've said enough for now. TTYL.Ryoung122 21:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, that is NOT a 'primary' source but a third-party source, as are the thousands of other sources that could be added. Clearly, this AFD is not about me, not about notability, not even about Misplaced Pages. It's about a 'vendetta' and the return of 'Aboutmovies' is just incredulous.

WebHamster is right. WP:NOTE says that "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail". Recording someone as an author of part of a publication doesn't pass that test. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates