Deletion of Robert Young (gerontologist)

Comment: due to concerns about |notability; most of the links and references provided do not really back up the substance of the article. Possibly worth a merge into Gerontology Research Group, but this might skew that article since Mr Young looks to be a fairly minor figure in that organistation
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: I don't see how this should pass , or how the subject is more notable than the senior accountant for the Guinness Book of Records. Since
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Ryoung: Please note that your above comment about a scorched earth campaign is not only incorrect, but is a Wikipedia:No personal attacks|personal attack. Nothing in my comments here are related to the Wood issue, other than you left a link there to your autobiography. Once seeing that article my immediate response is that it does not meet  as I have explained above. Thus when someone nominated it for AFD, I weighed in. As a member of the Biography WikiProject, and a frequent AFD person, I am pretty familiar with what should and should not be included along the lines of bios (and corporations too) per Wikipedia guidelines/policies. This autobiography does not meet . Could it? Maybe, but as it is now, it does not
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BIO)

Comment: It's hard for me not to see this as a case of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest|vanity, and only the subject's claims and the |assumption of good faith keeps me from doing so. There is almost nothing in that article that does not distinguish it from a CV or resume -- which is my rule of thumb for inclusion, & based on his numerous responses if such material existed it would be there. As for the need to provide one central location for his references or sources, he is welcome to create a page in his user space for that purpose
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)

Comment: I've thought about Mr. Young's notability some more, and came back out of retirement just this one occasion to share my conclusion. Mr. Young calls himself a gerontologist; Gerontology is the study of aging on people (not the study of age-related diseases), and the effect of aging people on society. "Debunking" of longevity claims is not per se a part of gerontology, as it hardly serves any academic purpose (at least for gerontology, perhaps it serves a purpose for history). As such, Mr. Young's achievements as an academic are marginal at best and certainly don't meet  (please note that this guideline applies to all academics, not just professors, which Mr. Young assumed without checking). Therefore, as a gerontologist he is not particularly noteworthy. His notability arises from his investigations into longevity claims, for which an academic degree is not required (as Mr. Young himself shows on his user page). This position is not more noteworthy than, say, a senior investigator of insurance fraud. I even dare to say that most investigators of insurance fraud have "debunked" far more than 100 cases. If by any chance the article is kept, it certainly should be renamed to Robert Young (longevity claim investigator), as he has no notability as a gerontologist
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: I guess it really doesn't make that much of a difference to me whether this article stays or goes, but I think one of the biggest problems that people seem to be having (including myself) is that it was written by the subject itself.  is bad and all that. I think the people who are voting for keep should be prepared to completely rewrite the article - blank the page and recreate it themselves. As linked to in , everything must be verifiable and no original research is allowed and, from looking at the article, I can see where there are arguably violations to that. Anyhow, if this does stay, people who voted keep should keep it up and people who voted delete should make sure that, at the very least, it satisfies verifiability and . Voting comes with a responsibility
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Autobiography (WP:AUTO||WP:NOR)