Deletion of Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) (2nd nomination)

Comment: Thank you to the editor who added the {{tl|notvote}} template. Many of the recent "delete" votes are very weak. Several are just bare assertions, having not explained why the sources are insufficient. These are  votes (Capitalismojo, Czolgolz, and Galloglass).Guy's argument that "The lack of depth in coverage makes it impossible to ensure NPOV" is unconvincing. How does the article in its current state not comply with ?  should be easy to maintain. If non-neutral material is added in the future, it can be just be removed.Itsmejudith talks about the ''Metro'' being unimpressive, but she doesn't indicate why the ''Chicago Tribune'' 2006 and ''Wall Street Journal'' 2010 articles mentioned by David Eppstein are insufficient
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE||WP:NPOV)

Comment: per #7. "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." Special:Contributions/24.151.10.165|24.151.10.165
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC)

Comment: I think {{u|John Carter}} hit the right idea here. From the above it is abundantly clear that Young fails  by a mile. EEng's detailed analyses have also made it clear that notability under GNG is marginal, at best. Given that whatever notability there is, is related to Young being the spokesperson of the Gerontology Research Group, I think that redirecting this to that article, adding a single phrase to that article ("It's spokesperson is Robert Young" or something like that, with the one AP source that gives a more than in-passing mention of Young) would seem to be the best solution
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC)

Comment: I believe he satisfies . Looking through the sources, the http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-02-08/features/0602080100_1_guinness-world-records-oldest-people-supercentenarians Chicago Tribune article in 2006 is an in-depth article and not merely an interview.  By itself, this isn't a strong case for notability, but there is another clause in :"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."  As
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:BASIC)