Deletion of Robert Young (longevity claims researcher)

Comment: I'm not sure what to make of the jumble of random statements and facts posted by RY in response to my earlier comments, but it has not shifted me from my view that his specialism is making lists of the very old. Whether these lists are of use to members of the Gerontological community is open to question. The subject ''may'' have a degree of notability within the small community of researches collating lists of the very old and possibly also in the wider Gerontological community, but even this does not appear to have been demonstrated and if it had, as per , this would still not necessarily translate into notability in the general sense or meet the criteria for notability on Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:LOCALFAME)

Comment: I don't see anything in  which defines the notability of a researcher by the notability of their employer or publication; that seems to me to be a definition of notability based more on importance, which is explicitly rejected by . Even if the publications are clearly notable, as in this case, notability is not inherited.  I'm also surprised by the suggestion that Young is the "main subject editor for a major subject for Gallup": I can find no mention of supercentenarians on Gallup's website, and Young is not listed on http://www.gallup.com/corporate/19318/Gallup-Senior-Scientists.aspx Gallup's list of senior scientists, and I see no evidence that this "a major subject for gallup". A google search for http://www.google.co.uk/search?&q=%22Robert+Young%22+site%3Agallup.com "Robert Young" site:gallup.comthrows up only one trivial result which goes no indication as to Robert Young|which of many possible Robert Youngs it means
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BIO)

Comment: as per all of the above. This is the most weird debate I have seen here yet. Subject NN. As far as I am concerned, this is a |snowball
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: Not notable per , , just |not notable and the main proponent that is busy editwaring here has a massive |conflict of interests.  Also there are many and more arguments above, which I will endorse.  This is a sloppy, poor article about a non-notable person whose is growing to become a notable editwarrior.  Not only should his edits be scrutinised, he probably should be warned for failing to  and to |lighten up as well
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:BIO||WP:NN||WP:COI||WP:AGF||WP:NAM)

Comment: per BHG's arguments. Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: The article could certainly use some cleanup and some outside contributors, but crikey, how many sources do you need? It appears that nearly the first three pages of Google results that are returned for the search terms that Mr. Young used are about or refer to him. Just because the sources are not cited in the article (yet) does not mean the article is deletable. (See .) I would agree with the suggestion that the page be renamed, perhaps to Robert Young (gerontology). I would also suggest to Mr. Young that he back off from editing his article for awhile and solicit the assistance of some outside editors. While it's not forbidden to edit an article about yourself, it's frowned upon to varying degrees as a |conflict of interest. Personally, I have no problem with someone working on an article about themself or about something they're connected to, as long as they remain |neutral and provide |reliable sources for any statements or claims that are disputable. It's generally not a good idea to actually create an article about yourself as Mr. Young seems to have done, but what's done is done, and it actually doesn't seem that he's done a half bad job of keeping it/making it fairly neutral. I would also like to remind the COI police that additions of facts such as birthdates, places of employment, places of residence, names of spouses/children and the like that are added by the subject of an article are both acceptable to be added by the subject and do not typically require a source per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:PROBLEM||WP:COI||WP:NEUTRAL||WP:RS||WP:AUTO)

Comment: per nom and previous AFD, not enough  used as sources that have substantial coverage required under 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:BIO)

Comment: This expert's qualifications are on the border of what we might consider notable, but I believe that AfD voters are allowed to take into account  combative and self-promotional editing during the AfD itself, as well as violations of the |conflict of interest guideline, which suggests you should not edit your own biography. (This AfD debate Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ryoung122_disrupting_XfD_discussions|was noticed at , and not without reason). A little humility goes a long way. By a set of standards in Wikipedia whereby most full professors at major universities would be notable, someone this early in his career would not normally be considered notable in a scientific field unless he had made unusual discoveries. I don't believe this has been shown
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:ANI)

Comment: Fails . Since when have graduate students been considered notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)