Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The DRV has been closed as "recreation permitted" and the history merge completed. I am going to move this to mainspace now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox[edit]

Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) was deleted back at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) in 2007. Admins can review but it looks like User:CBDunkerson saved his version from this page (which seems older) to there but it was still deleted. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What possible reason could there be to delete a sandbox page in someone's user space? --CBD 21:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEBHOST. Wikipedia isn't for hosting articles, especially articles that were deleted years ago. If you were actively working on this for possible re-inclusion to the encyclopedia with a potential request at WP:Deletion review, then it looks like you're actively working on the page. - Ricky81682 (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that WP:NOTWEBHOST applies. To resolve that problem, I think this userspace draft can be returned to mainspace based on the new sources that have surfaced since the previous AfD. Cunard (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article was deleted and no effort has been made to improve it. Appears to be an attempt to get around the deletion process. CommanderLinx (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ca2james (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And trout those posting here who fail to AGF. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CBDunkerson, it's been over seven years. Can you clarify your intent? Are you actually trying to improve this page with an eye to moving it to mainspace? --BDD (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The original AfD was one of the more egregious BLP violations I have ever seen, with several participants seemingly more interested in tearing down a random minor public figure than improving the encyclopedia. I kept the content because, quite frankly, it never should have been removed in the first place. There was overwhelming evidence of notability in reliable sources even back then... much of the argument for deletion focused on 'original research' claims that the media, including the New York Times, had been 'fooled' into covering non-notable individuals (several related AfD's failed). I expected that eventually the hostile contributors would move on, the article would be re-created as a stub, and I could use some of the references to improve it. Obviously, if the history is preserved that can be done anyway, but keeping the page active in my namespace was a way to remind myself to check occasionally if the article status had changed. I wasn't going to re-create the article myself out of concern that doing so could cause a repeat of the prior unpleasantness. I have no objections to removing the content in favor of a mainspace article, but failing that I'd like to keep it around for the reasons cited. --CBD 10:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to mainspace per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
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".
Cunard (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've listed this draft at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 27#Robert Young (longevity claims researcher). Cunard (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a copy-and-paste job with the wrong history. I don't see what is gained by keeping this version other than a complicated history merge. Wouldn't it be easier to just ask to restore the original AFD'd article in draft space and work off that? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC): "Previous version of Robert Young article"
21:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC): "New version of Robert Young article"
I think a history merge is needed to preserve CBDunkerson's significant improvement of the draft in the second diff.
Cunard (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

history merge completed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.