Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reliability theory of aging and longevity

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

The result was keep. Sam Walton (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability theory of aging and longevity[edit]

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}}.

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

Lots of OR and SYNTH, created by author of the "theory". No independent references (those that are not by Gavrilov were published even before this "theory" was formulated. No indicatiàon of meeting WP:GNG, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This theory is published in peer-reviewed articles and got over 300 scientific citations already, according to Google Scholar -- 173.61.107.132 (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC) — 173.61.107.132 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Mots of things get published in peer reviewed journals all the time and that doesn't necessarily make them notable. Are there any secondary sources (review articles, textbooks, or such) that discuss this "theory" in-depth (as opposed to in-passing citations)? --Randykitty (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Yes, please see the theory coverage by "The Scientist", 16(10): 20, May 13, 2002, for example -- 173.61.107.132 (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IP seems to be talking about this article. This theory has also been discussed in the Wall Street Journal. Given that it is discussed in this book (page 23) as well, I vote keep. Everymorning talk 02:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was talking about this article. Thanks for your most interesting comments, additional links and your vote! -- 173.61.107.132 (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Publication in the Handbook of the Biology of Aging seems adequate evidence of notability. Secondary commentary appears in the Handbook of Gerontology. These are from respectable publishers and there are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger into Senescence#Theories_of_aging. Andrew D. (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your very useful links, your suggestions and your vote! -- 173.61.107.132 (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Arguments for keeping this article, suggested by Everymorning (talk) and Andrew D. (talk)

are quite convincing. This article exists for a long time (since 2006), providing important information to the public, and it is a result of successful cooperation of many contributors, participating in this project. -- 128.135.235.49 (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC) — 128.135.235.49 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. This theory, published in reputable peer-reviewed academic editions, received coverage in many independent secondary sources. Here are some examples:

“Engineering and Aging: The Best Is Yet to Be“ - IEEE Spectrum - September 2004, 41(9): 10
“Human Reliability. We break down just like machines“ - Industrial Engineer - November 2004, 36(11): 66
“Reliability Theory Applied To Aging And Longevity“ - The University Science News - UniSci, February 12, 2002
“Life’s creaking machinery“ - The Guardian, UK - September 01, 2004
“Engineering Explains Our Failing Bodies“ - Industrial Market Trends, - October 27, 2004
“Aging, in Theory: A Personal Pursuit. Do body system redundancies hold the key? “- The Scientist, 16(10): 20, May 13, 2002

Hope this helps. -- Biodemographer (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC) — Biodemographer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Old but well-sourced theory --I am One of Many (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2014 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.