Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Epstein (supercentenarian tracker)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Delete. Not individually notable. There weren't even many merge arguments. Feel free to add properly referenced information about Epstein to another supercentenarian article, but there wasn't much in this article to preserve, and it's not likely many will type "Louis Epstein (supercentenarian tracker)" into the search box, so we don't need a redirect. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Louis Epstein (supercentenarian tracker)

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. 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 by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
Louis Epstein (supercentenarian tracker) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable tracker of supercentenarians. As the history and talk page show, the article history icludes a series of dubious edits involving an anon IP claiming to to be Epstein himself, and by another researcher in the field Robert Young/User:Ryoung122. I have today removed the dubious material (some of it for BLP reasons, see the article's talk page), but the notability issues apply equally to the current version and the version before removal.

It seems to me that none of the assertions in the article confer a presumption of notability per WP:BIO. There are no references, just three external links, which fall well short of establishing notability:

Young describes Epstein as a "recluse and he does not seek publicity"[1]. Young also claims that Epstein's work "has had a far-reaching impact", but the evidence so far falls far short of establishing notability.

Note that the article on Robert Young is also being discussed at AfD. It might be better to consider creating an article on supercentenarian trackers or supercentenarian tracking, because there seems to be enough material to establish notability for the field of research, even though the individual researchers fall short. I don't think that it be would appropriate to merge this article in a new article, because most of the facts asserted in it are unreferenced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep.. Again, for those who thought it was 'about me,' I said it was about the entire field. But consider: we cannot determine if life-extension treatments work if we don't know how long the human life span is. Also, the question has been raised: is the human life span in a 'static-state' (little change in the past 100,000 years) or has it been increasing? Thus it is important to answer this question. Also note, once again, there are multiple, multiple sources for Mr. Epstein which I will soon post.Ryoung122 14:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • No one is arguing the validity of your research, Mr. Young. The issues at question are solely whether the specific individuals who have pursued such research are notable for doing so. The field can be notable without individual researchers being so. Powers T 14:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment If there are sources which demonstrate notability then I would be delighted to withdraw the nomination. But I also think it's important to note that notability is not established by primary sources, or by trivial secondary sources such as inclusion in a list of participants at a conference. Please do read and study WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep/merge Seems notable enough to keep while the overall topic is fleshed out. Colonel Warden 14:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - totally fails our tests of notability. --Orange Mike 15:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

    Actually,the list (which appeared 1970-1988 and 1991-95 and only ever listed national recordholders) disappeared as part of the editorial makeover into pictures and soundbites rather than dense facts.Guinness has always been rigorous about false claims if not always immune.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 20:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete not notable - just a researcher in a field that may or may not be notable. MLA 15:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - for full transparency, I suggest that User:12.144.5.2 (the leaving essay left by Epstein at the static IP address he used to edit Wikipedia) be restored, possibly permanently and at least for the duration of this deletion debate. Talk:Louis Epstein (supercentenarian tracker) also has the following:

    "On November 7, 2007, he was amazed to discover the existence of this biographical article about him,which he considers another example of Wikipedia's bloated tendency to include material of little conceivable interest to the general reader.He continues to contemplate the creation of his own Wiki site,which would be hosted on a Putnam Internet server and operate on the principle of his holding the compilation copyright and contributors retaining all right to the use elsewhere of their contributions."

    By the way, does anyone know why Guinness Book of Records ceased published lists of oldest people? Carcharoth 16:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • comment - Briefly: people lie. They lie big-time about claims of longevity. The Guinness folks couldn't get reliable information about the matters, and chose to follow the same rule Jimbo adopted for us: better no info than false info. --Orange Mike 16:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I like the idea of supercentenarian tracking as an article to cover the researchers and the field in one place. Carcharoth 16:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Ergo, the need for people like Louis Epstein. Note that Guinness eventually revived much of what was deleted when it became apparent that there was continued interest and dedicated persons like Louis Epstein who wouldn't let the concept die. So, whether this article is deleted or not, there should at least be a mention of his efforts in an article, 'supercentenarian tracking.'Ryoung122 16:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. To avoid COI issues, I'd like it if someone else created the article. I could serve as someone for information on where to find sources if needed.Ryoung122 16:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • There you go. Feel free to edit that and provide reliable sources that verify the content and don't forget to demonstrate and source notability. Carcharoth 17:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Maybe he will pass WP:BIO in due course but he has not yet done so. - Kittybrewster ☎ 16:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete ignoring the canvassing and bad-faith accusations flying around here, this is about as non-notable a figure as it's possible to get. "A researcher who compiles lists?" By that logic, almost everyone here would warrant their own article. — iridescent 17:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Not all 'lists' are created equal. A list multiply cited by scientific papers and included as such is QUALITATIVELY different than, say, a list of paper-clip collections.Ryoung122 17:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - As it stands this article comes very short of the requisite standards to be met under WP:BIO. I would seriously suggest that Ryoung122 actually reads WP:BIO, WP:PROF and more importantly WP:COI before he creates any similar articles. Galloglass 18:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete He may be the Simon Wiesenthal of supercentenarians, but probably won't merit his own article for another seventy-five years or so. Mandsford 01:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please explain why these are not 'reliable' sources:

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/10945450260195667

http://user.demogr.mpg.de/jwv/pdf/AmActJournal2002.pdf

Ryoung122 07:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. This one may be less reliable, but it's apparent there are sources out there.

http://www.geocities.com/crvillamin/longlife.htm

I'm not going to continue to fight this 'lost cause.' Instead, I plan to apply the new-found standards of exclusion to a plethora of 'junk' articles that really shouldn't be in Wikipedia.Ryoung122 07:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert, I'm afraid you may have to accept that only some of the people mentioned at extreme longevity tracking will get their own articles. It is perfectly acceptable to include short paragraphs about them in that article (effectively a merge), so I suggest you concentrate on that, and improving that article. I will help you there, and some other editors may also help out as well. Hopefully that will calm things down a bit as well. Carcharoth 10:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge as per Carcharoth. --Crusio 11:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete and merge is not allowed under the GFDL. For AfD purposes, a merge is "move content to a different location and let the editors there decide how much to keep". Carcharoth 12:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge as per users Carcharoth and Crusio too. Extremely sexy 13:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Umm, did you really mean "keep"? Carcharoth recimmeded merger, and Crusio recommended deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I would interpret "keep and merge" as a merge. See my comment above about GFDL. Keep and merge is at least more logical than delete and merge. Educating people about AfD lingo is a necessary part of participating in AfD. There is really no need at all to question a "keep and merge" comment, as it is plain what is meant by this. Keep can refer to the content, topic and title. Sometimes a title needs to be deleted, but the content can be kept. Sometimes a topic is notable enough to be covered, but the current content and title should go for now and it should be started from scratch, sometimes "delete and redirect" makes sense if a redirect is needed but the current content should be binned, etc, etc. Carcharoth 15:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
        • That's how I'd interpret it too, but when someone says "per X" but X has recommended something slightly different, I think that it's a good idea to suggest that they wish to clarify the intentions. I have sometimes !vote "keep" per X when I meant "delete per X", and it has always been useful to have someone seek clarification. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Though his work may well be respected or even unique, there is no credible evidence of non-trivial independent coverage of the person himself. Thus, we may not have an article. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Louis is a neat guy, a dilligent researcher, and a tenacious defender of the Divine Right of Kings, but I can't see how he meets WP:BIO. I don't think merging makes sense; his political and business activities aren't really relevant to his tracking of supercentenarians. I think it's sufficient to note that he is the author of the lists in question, and leave it at that. Choess 21:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO - insufficient secondary sources. I'd be happy with a reasonably short summation of this and Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) being merged into Extreme longevity tracking. —Moondyne 22:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Ok, a short one-paragraph merge into the 'extreme longevity tracking' seems a reasonable compromise. One comment: Louis maintains half of the GRG lists, I maintain the other half (actually a majority, but who's counting). The point is, when the media want to quote an expert on the world's oldest person, they turn to the GRG, Robert Young, or Louis Epstein. (Filipe Prista Lucas of Portugal will be the next, as he is the rising star). Note here's the latest:

http://www.shelbynews.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=93&ArticleID=52214&TM=8245.434 Ryoung122 03:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep As per being Robert Young's senior. Although I do agree the article needs ameliorations. The references/external links are his works/stuff made by him, rather than stuff about him. Neal 14:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Which part of WP:BIO or WP:PROF defines being "Robert Young's senior" as establishing notability? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Ahahaha, none. :P Being someone's senior isn't notable, I was just trying to list other stuff not mentioned. I just felt he was as notable as R. Young, except he's less mentioned in the media. Neal 19:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete there are no reliable secondary sources with Louis Epstein as a subject. Any verifyable material ought to be transferred to supercentenarian tracking. Also, Carcharoth's evidence that Louis Epstein believes the article is cruft that ought to be deleted, while not itself automatic grounds, ought to hold some sway in a case like this. Pete.Hurd 22:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Louis believes that Wikipedia should give users more power over their own bios, not necessarily a 'pro-deletion' stance.131.96.70.164 04:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Info - It seems to be the week for AfD'ing articles about people I used to hang out with on Usenet. Hi Louis. Long time no see. Sources for this article and/or info on this person to be merged into some other article can be found in various newspaper archives: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], et cetera. --CBD 13:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Since the Robert Young article has been deleted, there's no point in keeping this 1. So I changed my vote and striked through my previous vote. Neal 19:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC).

Keep Is Wikipedia running out of Webspace or we someone want to deleted a lot of articels? Wikipedia is a compact source for a lot of different themes and only because some admin don't interessted in this theme says that it is unimportened. A lot of people are interessted in supercentarions.
Statistician 10:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply No (is Wikipedia running out of webspace), no (do we want someone to delete a lot of articles), and no (Wikipedia admin not interested/says unimportant). It's more about citing sources. Scenario: you know a friend in real life (like Robert knows Louis Epstein), and everything you write about him is from memory and not sourced on the Internet. Therefore, a lot of the source for this article is Robert's brain, which fails substantial source on Wikipedia. Neal 19:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC).

Keep I only have a minor interest in the "world's oldest people" and I've heard of Louis Epstein, having seen his research sited in various articles, so he certainly seems notable. 68.45.106.216 14:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply The problem is, you can find plenty of works written by Louis Epstein, but not many about Louis Epstein. That itself is the problem. Neal 19:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC).

Comment (continued) And can I just say, for all of you that are still voting for keep, you obviously know Robert Young is a more notable person in the field of supercentenarians. Sure, Louis Epstein was his senior, being over a decade over him, but his fame was before the Internet age. Robert Young became a more successful 'supercentenarian tracker' having been in more media than Louis Epstein. And since his article was deleted, it would be pointless to having a less notable supercentenarian tracker with his own article, reason quite being logic. Neal 19:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC).

  • Delete, less notable than Robert Young. If Young's article got deleted, then so should this one. --RandomOrca2 22:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per reasons already cited above (not notable, no credible sources). Clockster 05:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
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.