Jeffry Life: Most claims are missing a source, the few sources that are there are poorly used.  :ᗡ OLI (she/her) Added Jeffery Life to List of University of Iowa alumni , that should solve the problem.  Rorr404 🗣️ ✍️ 🖼️ 🌐 17:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  The AfD previously had invalid formatting and transclusion, which have been fixed.  Thanks.  VickKiang (talk) 01:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as a celebrity author rather than as a scientist.  There are lots of articles in reliable sources about him.  He has written about his anti-aging theories in books rather than peer-reviewed journals, which makes me skeptical of his claims.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 05:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Medicine ,  and United States of America .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 05:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Fails WP:ANYBIO .  A search at Amazon , WorldCat and Library of Congress result in the same books only, which appear to be nothing more than different editions (2021, 2012, 2013,2014) of his diet plan.  The titles are a bit different each edition, but it's still his diet plan.  There is just nothing I find that makes this person notable.  Other than the author's books, I also see nothing that says he's a real doctor - maybe he is, but I don't find it.  — Maile ( talk ) 14:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In response to comments right below this, I'm thinking that maybe the real question is if the various editions of his diet book make him notable.  Other than his own account of who he was, and the subsequent updated versions of the book, there really doesn't seem to be any substantive info about him.  Notability of the book would hinge on its sales figures.  I've not run across anything about the sales numbers of his book, only that he later released updated editions.  — Maile ( talk ) 15:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Eastman.  Change to delete as interviews don't count for notability.  There are articles from the BBC, LA Times , New York Times Magazine , and The Times in the lead, so he clearly passes WP:GNG and ANYBIO isn't relevant.  I agree it's not a very good page, but it needs improvement rather than deletion.  -- CohenTheBohemian ( talk ) 14:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ CohenTheBohemian : The BBC and LA Times are interviews as for the other two you mentioned I don't know as I don't have a subscription for either of them.  So it does not pass WP:GNG as those two are not independent, the other two may not be either but I can't check.  OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions?  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, this might be an odd case of having adequate sources to establish GNG but ultimately not being suitable for a main space article.  Right now, I see no consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but rewrite.  The peer-reviewed paper from 1968 would largely have been replaced by more modern theories (I think), but we seem to have enough to keep, perhaps as an "anti-ageing activist"?  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets criteria of WP:GNG .  However, article has to be rewritten according to the encyclopedia rules in order to have a value for people.  ContributorMix ( talk ) 21:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The few appropriate references fail to support the listed facts.  If this passes WP:GNG (which I don't think it does) it should be rewritten from scratch , preferably after a good read of WP:BACKWARD .  - UtherSRG (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The BBC and LA Times are interviews as for the other two you mentioned I don't know as I don't have a subscription for either of them.  So it does not pass WP:GNG as those two are not independent, the other two may not be either but I can't check.  OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions?  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Qualifications are unsourced, and what is sourced is not notable enough, fails WP:GNG in my opinion.  GraziePrego ( talk ) 06:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  He's only known for being a symbol of testosterone and nothing more.  This is my first time particpating in AFD, so my arguments may be a bit invalid.  I have removed the orphan tag from the article because I have added his name to his alma maters.  For the sources, Jeffry Life is only mentioned as a bodybulider at an old age, and nothing else.  Passing mention of Life, the Financial Times doesn't have that much info which I believe mentions that Life was in a commericial(?) the Time article only inclues him in an image, a quick search of Google Books and I found that Life is mentioned only once outside his own books, and there's a passing mention in this USA today article.  The rest of the books are passing mentions of Life and some of them are SPS.  Tarantula TM ( speak with me ) ( my legacy ) 03:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Interviews can’t be used to justify notability.  Not much RS coverage beyond that.  Go4thProsper ( talk ) 10:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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.

Discussion outcome: delete