Bots removing my own category and delete my page!!! 333-blue 01:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A CfD about deleting categories for these pages can be found here, but the pages themselves have been deleted, apparently in error. Unless someone explains why the pages themselves need to go, I intend to restore them in the next couple of hours as it appears to be a simple housekeeping mistake. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored these three since I felt somewhat responsible as the nominator of the categories. I'm not sure why the bot deleted those, but clearly that was beyond the scope of the nomination. I've been discussing with User:333-bluehere. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even though new information has surfaced, I am taking listing this at DRV because of the article's contentious history.
Here are sources about the subject:
Extended content
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comment: If the consensus is to restore, please history merge User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox and Robert Young (longevity claims researcher). Note that the sandbox had other material prior to the 21:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC) version. Please only merge revisions from User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox on or after 21:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC). Cunard (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there are a few problems with this one. The subject area, generally, has been the subject of considerable problems, constant sock-puppetry and edit-warring and is the subject of ArbCom restriction. The subject in question was also a Wikipedia editor intent on promoting himself and blocked indefinitely for repeated sock-puppetry. The most recent suspected sock-puppet was blocked less than a year ago. Of the sources provided above, 3/5 were available when the notability of the subject was considered in 2007. Previous discussions were courtesy-blanked at the request of the subject but are enlightening, especially with regard to some of the sources available then. I acknowledge that the two remaining sources might get the subject over the line (in combination with what was available in the past) but the problematic history of the subject here (as an editor) gives me reason to pause. Do we really want to provide such a problematic editor with a long-campaign-for soapbox given his history of disruption and perhaps-marginal notability? Obviously endorse the original close (the nom isn't suggesting otherwise) but I'm not 100% we should allow this to be re-created. Perhaps if it were created under pending changes or something along those lines? St★lwart111 04:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the subject's problematic past behavior should lead to Wikipedia's keeping his article deleted despite his being notable. I don't think the subject is marginally notable. I instead think he is notable because he has received significant coverage in high quality sources like the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Wall Street Journal, and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Well there you go - thanks for pointing that out (though the problematic behaviour still occurred while those sanctions were in place from the looks of it). No, I don't think it should really impact on the final decision to re-create or not - I just have a problem with giving trolls and disruptive promo-spammers exactly what they want. I wouldn't object to re-creation but (as above) I think we should consider some extra provisions to prevent disruption. St★lwart111 00:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with adding pending changes or semi-protection if there is any further disruption. Cunard (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'd be happy to allow recreation on that basis. St★lwart111 11:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation without prejudice to a new AfD as sources appear to be above the bar and the last AfD was a long time ago.... Hobit (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation- I'm not sold on the sources but, like Hobit says, the last AfD was a very long time ago. ReykYO! 11:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation - I strongly disagreed with the original AfD spree and much of what followed, and thus obviously favor re-creation. Either Young is notable or he isn't. The nature of his interactions with other Wikipedia editors should be wholly irrelevant to that issue. Had that, and other Wikipedia standards (e.g. BLP, NOR), been adhered to in the first place I suspect there never would have been an issue. If the article is simply re-created in reasonable form without further (frankly irrelevant) denunciations of the subject here I doubt there will be any problem going forward. Sometimes people 'act out' when they are publicly insulted, accused of 'fraud', have their life's work challenged, et cetera. Go figure. So why not skip all that, instead follow actual Wikipedia procedures, and just look at the question of whether mention (and occasional in depth coverage) in virtually all major US news sources several times per year over the course of a couple decades constitutes 'notability' or not? CBD 11:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
User:NickOrnstein – criticism of the closing statement aside, this is endorsed.. – SpartazHumbug! 00:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This felt more like a super-vote from the closer rather than the review of the consensus. As I stated here, the closer's statement that "Active user working in longevity-related topics" seems like more a comment, not a review of what was discussed. Again, no one questioned whether the user was active (although he hadn't edited an article and months and was mostly just working on his user page) or argued inactivity as a rationale. The keeps votes from User:SiameseTurtle, and User:Longevitydude each argue that the user had a right to whatever he wants on his page (which is true, but subject to limitations), and that making personal attacks against the nominator. Longevitydude even removed the MFD tag. In contrast, the delete votes at the very least acknowledge discuss the webhost problems, and the BLP concerns which have been entirely ignored (namely posting birthdates for relatively unknown people). I don't think the proper close would be, rather than removing the possible BLP violations, to just telling the editor about it. And it's not just blue-links that need sources so I don't think the instruction was correct either. Similar userpages where this basically preferred version of lists were deleted.1, 2, 3, 4, 5. When the edit blanks the tables and is directed to work on the actual encyclopedia (the moderate position discussed there), we keep the rest and move on. When the editor agrees to move the content to projectspace, we accept it and move on. The general consensus from the discussion follows the consensus across MFD on this topic: editors should not be keeping their preferred formatting or order of tables on their userpages as basically decorations and instead should be directed to the projects to help out there. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. Closer should be evaluating the debate rather than placing his own opinion up top. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't mind DRVs, throwing around obviously false accusations like it's my opinion NickOrnstein is an editor who works on longevity related articles is uncalled for. WilyD 11:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the comment is that it's your opinion that it's relevant. I agree with your close, but the phrasing could be read as a supervote. Hobit (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for putting my point more eloquently, Hobit. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Wikipedia has traditionally given wide leeway to editors and how they use their userpages. I'm disappointed that we've put a user through an MfD over three tables on their userpage; this kind of pedantic behavior is why we've been losing editors since 2007. Moreover, this close was easily within the realm of admin discretion (and tangent: Wily's reasoning was not an opinion). Ed[talk][majestic titan] 21:03 and 21:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - that the user is actively using the information stored on their userpage is a legitimate reason for not deleting that userpage. Inactive drafts and things not maintained (and thus not relevant to current editing) are subject to deletion. On that basis, I see no technical fault in Wily's close. Users should not keep "rejected" (deleted), against-consensus versions of disputed content for the sake of maintaining an "alternate history" or some other such thing but if that is what is being suggested here, more evidence would be required. Users would do well to note that this topic area remains subject to Arb-Com sanctions. Arbs and Admins are likely to take an especially dim view of editors misusing userspace where that misuse relates to sanctioned topics (which applies equally to those abusing other processes, like disruptively removing templates during discussions). The suggestion that editors should focus their attention on collegial project work is a good one. It would be wise if the editor in question removed that which might be aWP:BLP concern from their userspace, to which that policy still applies. St★lwart111 00:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- "...the user is actively using the information stored on their userpage", define "actively". Since a 9 month total break from editing in July 2013 they have, prior to the longevity-related Mfds and with one exception, edited 2 pages, their user page and the totally unrelated List of oldest dogs. For evidence that they are knowingly maintaining an "alternative history" (by using flags) see User talk:NickOrnstein#Flags and the relevant link which contains an interesting example of their attitude at that time. Examples of their current attitude can be seen here, here, here and here. And having looked back through over 4 years history of this Userpage I can find nothing that was used in any existing mainspace article. I should also point out that the user has in the past provided a considerable amount of useful material for longevity-related articles as well as some which has been less useful. DerbyCountyinNZ(TalkContribs) 10:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's been maybe two dozen user and subpages at MFD over the last few weeks that are just tables and nothing more from users. A lot of just a simple copy and paste of the current list with a change in design and the user playing with it forever on their own. I see that Oldest_people#Oldest_people_ever doesn't have flags (or use "Ms." I guess). The biggest disappointment are the ones who blanked or deleted their pages after having sourced various material rather than work collaboratively at all but the Arbcom ruling shows that this isn't really new. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, I think the closing statement could be read as a supervote. That said, it's the right close given the issue and the discussion. endorse. Hobit (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.