The result was delete per a fairly strong consensus. krimpet ⟲ 03:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
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, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› 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:
The external links are little better:
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) reply
text collapsed |
---|
copy-and-paste of a screen of google results collapsed. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
17:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply GSU Researcher Tracks Elite Pack of Supercentenarians for Clues on ...From talking to people 110 and older, gerontology researcher Robert Young offers these three tips for aging: 1. Stay lean and healthy. ...
www.globalaging.org/health/us/2006/longevityclues.htm - 21k - Cached - Similar pages User:Ryoung122 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaFriedman was assisted in his discoveries by gerontology expert Robert Young of the Gerontology Research Group, who verified the records of the people ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ryoung122 - 42k - Cached - Similar pages Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) - Wikipedia, the free ...Robert Douglas Young (born May 2, 1974 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida) is a gerontology consultant and researcher best known for validating supercentenarian ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Young_(longevity_claims_researcher) - 29k - Cached - Similar pages Gerontology Research Group Index Page, as of [1997 - 2007]Gerontology Research Group. ... Our Chief Claims investigator, Mr. Robert Young of Atlanta, GA, has speculated that there are systematic seasonal variations ... www.grg.org/ - 2k - Cached - Similar pages Gerontology Research Group Centenarian StudyNow, Mr. Robert Young, GRG Senior Claims Investigator of Atlanta, GA, and Miguel Quesada have graphed the numbers of Supercentenarians over the last 25 ... www.grg.org/calment.html - 22k - Cached - Similar pages [ More results from www.grg.org ] Aging: The Reality: Demography of Human Supercentenarians -- Coles ...Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences · Large Type Edition ... 1, 1890, Living, 113*, W, M, Robert Young/Louis Epstein ... biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/content/full/59/6/B579/TA1 - Similar pages Supercentenarians Tables Validated Supercentenarian Cases Aged 114 ...rial Board, along with other members of the Los Angeles Gerontology Research Group. For fur- .... York and Mr. Robert Young of Atlanta, Georgia. ... www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/rej.2005.8.274 - Similar pages Supercentenarians Tables Validated Supercentenarian Cases Aged 114 ...Robert Young. 33. England. Anna Eliza Williams. June 2, 1873. Dec. 27, 1987 .... Los Angeles Gerontology Research Group (LA-GRG) . 2007. ... www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/rej.2006.9.503 - Similar pages [ More results from www.liebertonline.com ] Gerontology Institute at Georgia State UniversityApril Ross, Gerontology. Mark Sweatman, Sociology. Ying (Doris) Tang, Gerontology. DaVette Taylor-Harris, Gerontology. Robert Young, Gerontology ... www.gsu.edu/~wwwger/about/admin.html - 10k - Cached - Similar pages Gerontology Institute at Georgia State UniversityGerontology Students Participate in Annual Health Fair ... Mandy Clark and Robert Young Mandy Clark and Robert Young. Mark Sweatman Mark Sweatman ... www2.gsu.edu/~wwwger/students/HealthFair.html - 8k - Cached - Similar pages |
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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. One of the reasons Wikipedia 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) reply
WLTX.com, SC - Oct 15, 2007 A memorial service was held Saturday in Pickens, SC Georgia State University gerontology researcher Robert Young says Christopher was the oldest documented ...
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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia even if the data of the book does not appear on the Internet. Neal 19:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC). reply
Very long comments by Ryoung122 collapsed |
---|
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.
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?”
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) reply 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 Wikipedia. It's about a 'vendetta' and the return of 'Aboutmovies' is just incredulous. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryoung122 ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 7 November 2007 |
text collapsed |
---|
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 221 196 237 111 173 181 129 285 288 155 59 2006 166 202 159 133 284 225 177 107 207 179 173 140 2005 201 155 202 148 121 110 233 223 135 167 144 197 2004 217 172 154 154 128 177 275 181 137 153 282 274 2003 2 1 4 7 5 17 20 3 38 48 98 233 2002 4 8 3 6 3 4 This hardly involves 'one or two' cases. Also, your questions actually point to the rationale for this article to exist (and perhaps a related article on 'supercentenarian tracking', as ironically suggested by BHG). There are a lot of things you do not understand about the subject but that could be explained by articles on Wikipedia. Entire books have been written: Bernard Jeune and James W. Vaupel (eds.) Validation of Exceptional ...Book Reviews. Bernard Jeune and James W. Vaupel (eds.) Validation of Exceptional. Longevity, Monograph on Population Aging, 6. Odense University Press, ... www.springerlink.com/index/NHJ68773X42K88H8.pdf - Similar pages To me, a genealogist researches a family tree (local). Not notable. I research the world. International. Thus notable. It is simply not about an 'individual case' but about 'organization.' As recently as the year 1999, there was not yet a comprehensive effort to build a worldwide database of the world's oldest persons. Since that year, just a few indivuals: James Vaupel, Jean-Marie Robine, Stephen Coles,etc have made a concerned effort to change that. I have been involved in the process as an organizer and theorist, in both camps, and that alone means I have already had an impact. In the late 1980's, Guinness struggled to identify the world's oldest person, going through seven claimants (such as Maren Bolette Torp, Orpha Nusbaum, Jeanne Calment, etc) before settling on one, who turned out not to be true, after all (Carrie White). Clearly the lack of organization was a problem, as was the fact that even many scientists didn't really know the demographics of the outlying edge of human longevity. IN fact, at the time they didn't even have a 'world's oldest man' category. Due to the efforts of myself and Louis Epstein, Guinness added the category in the year 2000, and it is now considered a 'given' by world media that the death of the Guinness 'oldest living man' should be reported. However, when Walter Richardson died in the year 1998, his death was not reported. Hence, we can already see an organizational impact. Due to the combined efforts of a few persons, which includes myself, that has changed in just seven years. Now we have not only two main worldwide databases, but also many new competing organizations looking to 'get in on the action.' I have been a contributor to Guinness World Records since 1986, and involved in the decision regarding the 'world's oldest person' since the year 2000. I was promoted to the top position in 2005. Also, as a historian, I basically traced the historical players. We have Thoms in the 1870's, Young in 1905, Bell in 1918, Bowerman in 1939, Eckler in the 1950's-1970's, Epstein in the 1990's. But for all of them, it was usually one person, lone in the wilderness, not paid much attention to except for the occasional dispute such as George Fruits. I have done much in the last seven years to help 'mainstream' the field. That the field is becoming mainstream can be seen in such changes as this: New England Supercentenarian StudyThe New England Supercentenarian Study's mission is to study centenarians and supercentenarians who we believe carry the secrets to successful aging and how ... www.bumc.bu.edu/supercentenarian - 23k - Cached - Similar pages New England Centenarian StudyThe New England Centenarian Study's mission is to study centenarians who we believe carry ... Participant Photos · The New England Supercentenarian Study ...(founded 1994) www.bumc.bu.edu/centenarian - 28k - Cached - Similar pages [ More results from www.bumc.bu.edu ] (founded 2006) The ante has been upped. Of course I work in that organization as well. That I've been accepted by all sides, even competing ones, says much. When Aubrey de Grey wanted lists for his Rejuvenation Research magazine, whom did he ask? Check out the latest issue, coming this month, and see for yourself. Now, for most it would be better to not even deal with Wikipedia. Simply being the 'Wizard of Oz', the man pulling the strings behind the curtain, is to some far more powerful. The curtain maintains a system of untouchability, of control. However, my first goal has already been education of the next generation as to how long people really live. As such, I intend to follow in the roles of my mentors by mentoring others. Note I have been 'following' the world's oldest people since 1979, when I saw a story on the news about a woman and her 109th birthday. It took some 26 years to go from interest to hobby to list-making to organization to understanding the greater significance. Enough is enough. Wikipedia is not the final arbiter on notability. This was an attempt on my part to get kids involved, the younger generation. So far, it has worked. That the next generation is being properly educated about the subject is ultimately what is of importance here. The scientific work will continue, behind the scenes, accepted by peer-reviewed experts who are highly qualified to judge 'notability'. Ryoung122 11:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC) reply |
P.S. I added only those elements in the 'autobiography' that were pertinent to the 'world's oldest person' discussion. Why did I not graduate until 32? That story is far more interesting...you wouldn't believe me if I told you, so why bother? Ryoung122 11:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC) reply
http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/03-05/03-27-05/d06he017.htm
Is that the Atlanta Journal-Constitution? Looks like Massachusetts to me. Not only was it in the Wall Street Journal but carried in many other papers. So, you can say what you want but I respectfully disagree with interpretations otherwise. The standard is 'notable', not 'famous'. Have a nice day. 72.158.38.41 16:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC) reply
SineBot seems wrongly to label me of creating a 'Single-purpose-account'. I registered with en.wikipedia 3 years ago (on 8 Nov 2004). At that time I of course had no idea about this discussion coming up. It is completely true that I ve contributed to en.wikipedia just a few times. I ve however been far more active at no.wikipedia. I participate here because this topic is one of my fields of interest.
You dont see enough documentation to place Young as a significant expert in this area. Do you know the longevity research field well ? What about being a consultant to Guinness Book of Records then. Clearly they ve a solid history of consulting expert in various fields, dont they ? Guinness surely is an independent source by objective criteria.
I am, since four years ago involved with a Norwegian project where we re detecting and verifying the oldest people who have lived here. Mr Robert Young is well known to us here as a leading international expert in this specific field. Celvin11 04:55 11 November 2007 (CET) —Preceding comment was added at 03:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Collapsed text of another long, ill-formatted COI comment by Ryoung 122 |
---|
collapsed by
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
01:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
reply :Comment: I'd like to mention that I never claimed to be involved in 'Gallup'. Also, to suggest that only '16' scientists in America are notable is quite ridiculous. Further, for many who are commenting about sources, I note that not all the sources that COULD have been used for the article actually were. Thus I find it unfair to claim that there are no sources.
|
Collapsed text of yet another long, ill-formatted COI comment by Ryoung 122 |
---|
collapsed by
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
01:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
reply Comment: 'Trivial' coverage means that the news interviewed someone on the street. They may never be 'covered' again. Turning to an 'expert' (as is done with persons such as Sanjay Gupta) is NOT trivial, regardless of what you say.
Again, you are arguing this presumably on the basis of COI but it is not; I argue all the time about lots of articles. What this really is about is 'expertism' vs. 'tribalism'. Some persons have found Wikipedia to be their place of power and, knowing that they'd never have an article themselves, find their 'mode of operation' through tearing down others. It's a part of human nature. It's like the Lord of the Flies. The intelligent kid was killed first. Going back to your list:
PASS, AMPLE EVIDENCE PROVIDED
PASS, AMPLE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE
PASS.
I'd say I pass at least 3 of these criteria. I note, for example, https://www21.ssldomain.com/geron/geronmembers/gsasub.asp Anti-Aging Medicine: The Hype and the Reality February 2005 Combines the special anti-aging sections from the June and July 2004 issues of the Journal of Gerontology: Series A. Editors: S. Jay Olshansky, PhD; Leonard Hayflick, PhD; and Thomas T. Perls, MD, MPH
How about another one? http://biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/reprint/59/6/B579.pdf Another scientific journal: http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/rej.2006.9.503?cookieSet=1 Hmmn, another one: http://biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/content/full/59/6/B579/TA1 Hmmn, another one: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/547228 Hmmn, another one: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2006.00826.x How about National Public Radio? NPR : The Secrets of America's SupercentenariansThey're of particular interest to the Gerontology Research Group, gerontologists, ... ELLIS: Robert Young became the senior claims investigator of the GRG. ... www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4054195 - Similar pages
|
Comment RY seems to be accusing me of jealousy because I don't have an article of my own. I have no such jealousy, nor do I desire my own article:
Taking the links that he has provided:
Co-authoring two articles, being a source for part of a list of data on supercentenarians, being interviewed briefly about his data acquisition techniques does not make RY notable. Nor does being cited as a source in newspapers and on the BBC website make him notable. -- DavidCane 01:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Yet another over-long post from Ryoung122 collapsed |
---|
copy-and-paste of a screen of google results collapsed. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
12:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
reply [edit] Specific examples of sources
The person has been the subject of one of the following sources (which must be referenced in the article): 1.A credible independent biography. Database sources such as Notable Names Database, Internet Movie Database and Internet Adult Film Database are not considered credible since they are, like wikis, mass-edited with little oversight. Additionally, these databases have low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion. 2.Widespread coverage over time in the media such as the BBC, The Times or other reliable sources. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted. 3.Demonstrable wide name recognition from reliable sources. 4.In depth, independent, coverage in multiple publications showing a widely recognized contribution to the enduring historical record in the person's specific field.[4] It doesn't say "ALL" of the following. It says "ONE" of the following. Therefore I assert that this article meets definition #2 and definition #3. I have not claimed to meet #1 or #4. I have, in fact, had 'widespread coverage in the media over time' and 'demonstrable wide name recognition from RELIABLE sources. So, that means that a single trivial mention in the BBC isn't enough. But if, over time, there is 'widespread coverage over time', that SHOULD count. Last I checked, I have been in over 1,000 news articles from all six inhabited continents. I also pass the 'Google test'. Results 1 - 10 of about 58,900 for Robert+Young+gerontology. Results 1 - 10 of about 242,000 for Robert+Young+oldest. Results 1 - 10 of about 173,000 for Robert+Young+Guinness. That's not 10. That's not 100. That's not 1,000. That's, in fact, hits in the five and six digits. At the very least, those voting 'delete' should have voted 'weak delete'. To do otherwise is simply to ignore the evidence. However, I can understand, given that the arguments I made were collapsed, hardly a fair fight. There has also been coverage: http://www.globalaging.org/health/us/2006/longevityclues.htm http://www.ourdailydead.com/2005/08/ http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/SeniorStats/5-07-17OldestWomanChallenge.htm http://www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/content/abstract/1019/1/490?ck=nck I admit that MOST of the coverage isn't ABOUT me, directly. But my biggest disagreement is the hangup on 'trivial' coverage. When you are the cited authority in an article, that is NEVER trivial. The example given of 'trivial' coverage is a rock band mentioned in Clinton's autobiography. That band reference could be deleted; therefore, it is trivial. But newspaper use of an 'expert' to make a statement, assertion, or contention is NOT. I do think quite a few of you here need to go back and re-read the definitions. Further, given the 'stacked-deck' approach here (most of my comments were deleted or shrunk down, while false/incorrect statements were bandied about by others), it does seem this ship will sink. On its maiden voyage. Like the Titanic. So, as you all are out there, smug and sure about yourselves, just remember to apply the same WP policies to other articles that you did to this one, and next thing you know Wikipedia will have lost a LOT of weight. Because about 40% or more of the articles currently in existence wouldn't survive this level of scrutiny. "Lighten up" is right. The irony here is just too thick. Ryoung122 06:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply |
Further, 4,000+ words or not, consider:
A. Wikipedia is NOT PAPER
B. Since the arguments have been collapsed, it's almost as if they were not there.
Further, I wouldn't be continuing to make responses if additional issues have not been raised, but since they have, continued responses are needed. 72.158.38.41 19:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
StanPrimmer 01:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC) — StanPrimmer ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was delete per a fairly strong consensus. krimpet ⟲ 03:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
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, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› 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:
The external links are little better:
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) reply
text collapsed |
---|
copy-and-paste of a screen of google results collapsed. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
17:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply GSU Researcher Tracks Elite Pack of Supercentenarians for Clues on ...From talking to people 110 and older, gerontology researcher Robert Young offers these three tips for aging: 1. Stay lean and healthy. ...
www.globalaging.org/health/us/2006/longevityclues.htm - 21k - Cached - Similar pages User:Ryoung122 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaFriedman was assisted in his discoveries by gerontology expert Robert Young of the Gerontology Research Group, who verified the records of the people ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ryoung122 - 42k - Cached - Similar pages Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) - Wikipedia, the free ...Robert Douglas Young (born May 2, 1974 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida) is a gerontology consultant and researcher best known for validating supercentenarian ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Young_(longevity_claims_researcher) - 29k - Cached - Similar pages Gerontology Research Group Index Page, as of [1997 - 2007]Gerontology Research Group. ... Our Chief Claims investigator, Mr. Robert Young of Atlanta, GA, has speculated that there are systematic seasonal variations ... www.grg.org/ - 2k - Cached - Similar pages Gerontology Research Group Centenarian StudyNow, Mr. Robert Young, GRG Senior Claims Investigator of Atlanta, GA, and Miguel Quesada have graphed the numbers of Supercentenarians over the last 25 ... www.grg.org/calment.html - 22k - Cached - Similar pages [ More results from www.grg.org ] Aging: The Reality: Demography of Human Supercentenarians -- Coles ...Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences · Large Type Edition ... 1, 1890, Living, 113*, W, M, Robert Young/Louis Epstein ... biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/content/full/59/6/B579/TA1 - Similar pages Supercentenarians Tables Validated Supercentenarian Cases Aged 114 ...rial Board, along with other members of the Los Angeles Gerontology Research Group. For fur- .... York and Mr. Robert Young of Atlanta, Georgia. ... www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/rej.2005.8.274 - Similar pages Supercentenarians Tables Validated Supercentenarian Cases Aged 114 ...Robert Young. 33. England. Anna Eliza Williams. June 2, 1873. Dec. 27, 1987 .... Los Angeles Gerontology Research Group (LA-GRG) . 2007. ... www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/rej.2006.9.503 - Similar pages [ More results from www.liebertonline.com ] Gerontology Institute at Georgia State UniversityApril Ross, Gerontology. Mark Sweatman, Sociology. Ying (Doris) Tang, Gerontology. DaVette Taylor-Harris, Gerontology. Robert Young, Gerontology ... www.gsu.edu/~wwwger/about/admin.html - 10k - Cached - Similar pages Gerontology Institute at Georgia State UniversityGerontology Students Participate in Annual Health Fair ... Mandy Clark and Robert Young Mandy Clark and Robert Young. Mark Sweatman Mark Sweatman ... www2.gsu.edu/~wwwger/students/HealthFair.html - 8k - Cached - Similar pages |
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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. One of the reasons Wikipedia 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) reply
WLTX.com, SC - Oct 15, 2007 A memorial service was held Saturday in Pickens, SC Georgia State University gerontology researcher Robert Young says Christopher was the oldest documented ...
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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia even if the data of the book does not appear on the Internet. Neal 19:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC). reply
Very long comments by Ryoung122 collapsed |
---|
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.
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?”
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) reply 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 Wikipedia. It's about a 'vendetta' and the return of 'Aboutmovies' is just incredulous. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryoung122 ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 7 November 2007 |
text collapsed |
---|
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 221 196 237 111 173 181 129 285 288 155 59 2006 166 202 159 133 284 225 177 107 207 179 173 140 2005 201 155 202 148 121 110 233 223 135 167 144 197 2004 217 172 154 154 128 177 275 181 137 153 282 274 2003 2 1 4 7 5 17 20 3 38 48 98 233 2002 4 8 3 6 3 4 This hardly involves 'one or two' cases. Also, your questions actually point to the rationale for this article to exist (and perhaps a related article on 'supercentenarian tracking', as ironically suggested by BHG). There are a lot of things you do not understand about the subject but that could be explained by articles on Wikipedia. Entire books have been written: Bernard Jeune and James W. Vaupel (eds.) Validation of Exceptional ...Book Reviews. Bernard Jeune and James W. Vaupel (eds.) Validation of Exceptional. Longevity, Monograph on Population Aging, 6. Odense University Press, ... www.springerlink.com/index/NHJ68773X42K88H8.pdf - Similar pages To me, a genealogist researches a family tree (local). Not notable. I research the world. International. Thus notable. It is simply not about an 'individual case' but about 'organization.' As recently as the year 1999, there was not yet a comprehensive effort to build a worldwide database of the world's oldest persons. Since that year, just a few indivuals: James Vaupel, Jean-Marie Robine, Stephen Coles,etc have made a concerned effort to change that. I have been involved in the process as an organizer and theorist, in both camps, and that alone means I have already had an impact. In the late 1980's, Guinness struggled to identify the world's oldest person, going through seven claimants (such as Maren Bolette Torp, Orpha Nusbaum, Jeanne Calment, etc) before settling on one, who turned out not to be true, after all (Carrie White). Clearly the lack of organization was a problem, as was the fact that even many scientists didn't really know the demographics of the outlying edge of human longevity. IN fact, at the time they didn't even have a 'world's oldest man' category. Due to the efforts of myself and Louis Epstein, Guinness added the category in the year 2000, and it is now considered a 'given' by world media that the death of the Guinness 'oldest living man' should be reported. However, when Walter Richardson died in the year 1998, his death was not reported. Hence, we can already see an organizational impact. Due to the combined efforts of a few persons, which includes myself, that has changed in just seven years. Now we have not only two main worldwide databases, but also many new competing organizations looking to 'get in on the action.' I have been a contributor to Guinness World Records since 1986, and involved in the decision regarding the 'world's oldest person' since the year 2000. I was promoted to the top position in 2005. Also, as a historian, I basically traced the historical players. We have Thoms in the 1870's, Young in 1905, Bell in 1918, Bowerman in 1939, Eckler in the 1950's-1970's, Epstein in the 1990's. But for all of them, it was usually one person, lone in the wilderness, not paid much attention to except for the occasional dispute such as George Fruits. I have done much in the last seven years to help 'mainstream' the field. That the field is becoming mainstream can be seen in such changes as this: New England Supercentenarian StudyThe New England Supercentenarian Study's mission is to study centenarians and supercentenarians who we believe carry the secrets to successful aging and how ... www.bumc.bu.edu/supercentenarian - 23k - Cached - Similar pages New England Centenarian StudyThe New England Centenarian Study's mission is to study centenarians who we believe carry ... Participant Photos · The New England Supercentenarian Study ...(founded 1994) www.bumc.bu.edu/centenarian - 28k - Cached - Similar pages [ More results from www.bumc.bu.edu ] (founded 2006) The ante has been upped. Of course I work in that organization as well. That I've been accepted by all sides, even competing ones, says much. When Aubrey de Grey wanted lists for his Rejuvenation Research magazine, whom did he ask? Check out the latest issue, coming this month, and see for yourself. Now, for most it would be better to not even deal with Wikipedia. Simply being the 'Wizard of Oz', the man pulling the strings behind the curtain, is to some far more powerful. The curtain maintains a system of untouchability, of control. However, my first goal has already been education of the next generation as to how long people really live. As such, I intend to follow in the roles of my mentors by mentoring others. Note I have been 'following' the world's oldest people since 1979, when I saw a story on the news about a woman and her 109th birthday. It took some 26 years to go from interest to hobby to list-making to organization to understanding the greater significance. Enough is enough. Wikipedia is not the final arbiter on notability. This was an attempt on my part to get kids involved, the younger generation. So far, it has worked. That the next generation is being properly educated about the subject is ultimately what is of importance here. The scientific work will continue, behind the scenes, accepted by peer-reviewed experts who are highly qualified to judge 'notability'. Ryoung122 11:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC) reply |
P.S. I added only those elements in the 'autobiography' that were pertinent to the 'world's oldest person' discussion. Why did I not graduate until 32? That story is far more interesting...you wouldn't believe me if I told you, so why bother? Ryoung122 11:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC) reply
http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/03-05/03-27-05/d06he017.htm
Is that the Atlanta Journal-Constitution? Looks like Massachusetts to me. Not only was it in the Wall Street Journal but carried in many other papers. So, you can say what you want but I respectfully disagree with interpretations otherwise. The standard is 'notable', not 'famous'. Have a nice day. 72.158.38.41 16:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC) reply
SineBot seems wrongly to label me of creating a 'Single-purpose-account'. I registered with en.wikipedia 3 years ago (on 8 Nov 2004). At that time I of course had no idea about this discussion coming up. It is completely true that I ve contributed to en.wikipedia just a few times. I ve however been far more active at no.wikipedia. I participate here because this topic is one of my fields of interest.
You dont see enough documentation to place Young as a significant expert in this area. Do you know the longevity research field well ? What about being a consultant to Guinness Book of Records then. Clearly they ve a solid history of consulting expert in various fields, dont they ? Guinness surely is an independent source by objective criteria.
I am, since four years ago involved with a Norwegian project where we re detecting and verifying the oldest people who have lived here. Mr Robert Young is well known to us here as a leading international expert in this specific field. Celvin11 04:55 11 November 2007 (CET) —Preceding comment was added at 03:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Collapsed text of another long, ill-formatted COI comment by Ryoung 122 |
---|
collapsed by
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
01:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
reply :Comment: I'd like to mention that I never claimed to be involved in 'Gallup'. Also, to suggest that only '16' scientists in America are notable is quite ridiculous. Further, for many who are commenting about sources, I note that not all the sources that COULD have been used for the article actually were. Thus I find it unfair to claim that there are no sources.
|
Collapsed text of yet another long, ill-formatted COI comment by Ryoung 122 |
---|
collapsed by
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
01:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
reply Comment: 'Trivial' coverage means that the news interviewed someone on the street. They may never be 'covered' again. Turning to an 'expert' (as is done with persons such as Sanjay Gupta) is NOT trivial, regardless of what you say.
Again, you are arguing this presumably on the basis of COI but it is not; I argue all the time about lots of articles. What this really is about is 'expertism' vs. 'tribalism'. Some persons have found Wikipedia to be their place of power and, knowing that they'd never have an article themselves, find their 'mode of operation' through tearing down others. It's a part of human nature. It's like the Lord of the Flies. The intelligent kid was killed first. Going back to your list:
PASS, AMPLE EVIDENCE PROVIDED
PASS, AMPLE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE
PASS.
I'd say I pass at least 3 of these criteria. I note, for example, https://www21.ssldomain.com/geron/geronmembers/gsasub.asp Anti-Aging Medicine: The Hype and the Reality February 2005 Combines the special anti-aging sections from the June and July 2004 issues of the Journal of Gerontology: Series A. Editors: S. Jay Olshansky, PhD; Leonard Hayflick, PhD; and Thomas T. Perls, MD, MPH
How about another one? http://biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/reprint/59/6/B579.pdf Another scientific journal: http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/rej.2006.9.503?cookieSet=1 Hmmn, another one: http://biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/content/full/59/6/B579/TA1 Hmmn, another one: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/547228 Hmmn, another one: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2006.00826.x How about National Public Radio? NPR : The Secrets of America's SupercentenariansThey're of particular interest to the Gerontology Research Group, gerontologists, ... ELLIS: Robert Young became the senior claims investigator of the GRG. ... www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4054195 - Similar pages
|
Comment RY seems to be accusing me of jealousy because I don't have an article of my own. I have no such jealousy, nor do I desire my own article:
Taking the links that he has provided:
Co-authoring two articles, being a source for part of a list of data on supercentenarians, being interviewed briefly about his data acquisition techniques does not make RY notable. Nor does being cited as a source in newspapers and on the BBC website make him notable. -- DavidCane 01:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Yet another over-long post from Ryoung122 collapsed |
---|
copy-and-paste of a screen of google results collapsed. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
12:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
reply [edit] Specific examples of sources
The person has been the subject of one of the following sources (which must be referenced in the article): 1.A credible independent biography. Database sources such as Notable Names Database, Internet Movie Database and Internet Adult Film Database are not considered credible since they are, like wikis, mass-edited with little oversight. Additionally, these databases have low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion. 2.Widespread coverage over time in the media such as the BBC, The Times or other reliable sources. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted. 3.Demonstrable wide name recognition from reliable sources. 4.In depth, independent, coverage in multiple publications showing a widely recognized contribution to the enduring historical record in the person's specific field.[4] It doesn't say "ALL" of the following. It says "ONE" of the following. Therefore I assert that this article meets definition #2 and definition #3. I have not claimed to meet #1 or #4. I have, in fact, had 'widespread coverage in the media over time' and 'demonstrable wide name recognition from RELIABLE sources. So, that means that a single trivial mention in the BBC isn't enough. But if, over time, there is 'widespread coverage over time', that SHOULD count. Last I checked, I have been in over 1,000 news articles from all six inhabited continents. I also pass the 'Google test'. Results 1 - 10 of about 58,900 for Robert+Young+gerontology. Results 1 - 10 of about 242,000 for Robert+Young+oldest. Results 1 - 10 of about 173,000 for Robert+Young+Guinness. That's not 10. That's not 100. That's not 1,000. That's, in fact, hits in the five and six digits. At the very least, those voting 'delete' should have voted 'weak delete'. To do otherwise is simply to ignore the evidence. However, I can understand, given that the arguments I made were collapsed, hardly a fair fight. There has also been coverage: http://www.globalaging.org/health/us/2006/longevityclues.htm http://www.ourdailydead.com/2005/08/ http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/SeniorStats/5-07-17OldestWomanChallenge.htm http://www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/content/abstract/1019/1/490?ck=nck I admit that MOST of the coverage isn't ABOUT me, directly. But my biggest disagreement is the hangup on 'trivial' coverage. When you are the cited authority in an article, that is NEVER trivial. The example given of 'trivial' coverage is a rock band mentioned in Clinton's autobiography. That band reference could be deleted; therefore, it is trivial. But newspaper use of an 'expert' to make a statement, assertion, or contention is NOT. I do think quite a few of you here need to go back and re-read the definitions. Further, given the 'stacked-deck' approach here (most of my comments were deleted or shrunk down, while false/incorrect statements were bandied about by others), it does seem this ship will sink. On its maiden voyage. Like the Titanic. So, as you all are out there, smug and sure about yourselves, just remember to apply the same WP policies to other articles that you did to this one, and next thing you know Wikipedia will have lost a LOT of weight. Because about 40% or more of the articles currently in existence wouldn't survive this level of scrutiny. "Lighten up" is right. The irony here is just too thick. Ryoung122 06:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply |
Further, 4,000+ words or not, consider:
A. Wikipedia is NOT PAPER
B. Since the arguments have been collapsed, it's almost as if they were not there.
Further, I wouldn't be continuing to make responses if additional issues have not been raised, but since they have, continued responses are needed. 72.158.38.41 19:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
StanPrimmer 01:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC) — StanPrimmer ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply