Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerontology Research Group
I'm not comfortable with the idea of an article just to "keep them honest", which I'm sure was well-intended but sounds potentially a little |pointy. What we seem to have here is an informal group of academics and others, which has gained attention overwhelmingly for the least academic aspect of its work (viz. the verification through public records of claims of extreme longevity by a former census official), but very little attention for anything else.  That work has attracted 478 trivial mentions in the news media, but very little in-depth coverage, and I have to wonder to what extent the modest clippings file has been bloated by the extent to which wikipedia has been used by Ryoung122 to create a walled garden of articles linking to the GRG; it's very hard to disentangle cause and effect here.If we had some substantial and reliable coverage examining the GRG's work, there might be something to go on, but as David Eppstein notes, that isn't available. Without it, I think that the best editorial control we can exercise is to say that in the midst of all the hype, there isn't enough reliable material to make an article
— User:BrownHairedGirl, 13:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:POINT (Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point)