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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:51, 3 March 2015

Robert Young (longevity claims researcher)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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 @Canadian Paul:, @DerbyCountyinNZ:, @Ricky81682:, and @David in DC: 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)[reply]

Delete until Supercentenarian Research Foundation is reliably sourced as having accomplished important work.

Relevant WP:NACADEMIC criteria:

1. "Significant contribution to his field." Google Scholar shows his papers typically have around a dozen citations, in a field (gerontology) where papers may easily have hundreds.
3. "Fellow of a prestigious group."The group he co-founded is not yet WP-notable, so membership isn't a great honor.
7. "Impact outside of academia." Being cited as an authority on human-interest trivia is cool, but not "a substantial impact".

His research area ("golly, how do they get so old?") could certainly grow into importance, and his seminal contributions could make him famous, but that's all WP:CRYSTAL for now. FourViolas (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keep per my comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 27#Robert Young (longevity claims researcher).
Here are the sources about the subject:
1. Malcolm, Andrew H. (2005-06-25). "Hitting the Big Eleven-O". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2015-01-26. Retrieved 2015-01-26.
  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."
2. White, Gayle (2006-02-08). "Supercentenarians giving researchers clues on longevity". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2015-01-26. Retrieved 2015-01-26.
  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.
3. Conwell, Vikki (2009-02-15). "Oldest people are his career Atlantan is expert on age champions". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original on 2015-01-26. Retrieved 2015-01-26.
  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.
4. Bialik, Carl (2010-07-24). "Scientists Seek to Tabulate Mysteries of the Aged". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-01-26. Retrieved 2015-01-26.
  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.
5. Mandel, Brynn (2006-05-07). "Photographer traveled the world to snap the oldest among us". Republican-American. Archived from the original on 2015-01-26. Retrieved 2015-01-26.
  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 Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline 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)[reply]

Pinging User:ThaddeusB (who closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox).
Pinging Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 27#Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) participants User:Stalwart111, User:Hobit, User:Reyk, and User:CBDunkerson. Cunard (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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★lwart¹¹¹ 03:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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★lwart¹¹¹ 03:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 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 [1] 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 [2], its website hasn't been updated since 2010 [3]. 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" 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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" [4] journal edited by [5] 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: [6].) EEng (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keep per WP:NACADEMIC#7. "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)[reply]

He's not quoted as an "academic expert". EEng (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Other than [7], where does anyone call him an "expert"? EEng (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
 ::::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" [http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2005-01/prophet-immortality] journal edited by [http://www.liebertpub.com/editorialboard/rejuvenation-research/127/] 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: [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=10693572510893966074&as_sdt=40000005&sciodt=0,22].) [[User:EEng|EEng]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:ThaddeusB|ThaddeusB]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:EEng|EEng]] ([[User talk:EEng|talk]]) 21:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' per [[WP:NACADEMIC#7]]. "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." [[Special:Contributions/24.151.10.165|24.151.10.165]] ([[User talk:24.151.10.165|talk]]) 19:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 ::He's not quoted as an "academic expert". [[User:EEng|EEng]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:ThaddeusB|ThaddeusB]] ([[User talk:ThaddeusB|talk]]) 21:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
+::::Other than [http://www.webcitation.org/6Vsc2Lrcu], where does anyone call him an "expert"? [[User:EEng|EEng]] ([[User talk:EEng|talk]]) 21:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)