Pro-aging trance: Most mentions are by the person who coined it (see Google Scholar and Google News ).  The page was subject to AfD in 2010 with result merged .  It was recreated in 2022 in a substantially expanded form so doesn't qualify for WP:G4 .  AncientWalrus ( talk ) 17:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The term was coined in 2007 at the latest, and has since been used in various scientific articles as well as prominent and independent media outlets, including The Guardian , BBC , Racine Journal Times , openDemocracy and Lifespan Extension Advocacy Foundation (see sources and literature cited in the article).  It was even mentioned in an article by Deutschlandfunk , a German radio channel: https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/die-abschaffung-des-alters-102.html .  The explained phenomenon, although not directly mentioned, has also been the subject of many scientific studies; see reception section.  With regard to that, I'd contest that the term is still a neologism and that the phenomenon has experienced too little coverage by reliable scientific and media sources to be notable.  Maxeto0910 ( talk ) 17:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please include links to relevant reliable sources directly here.  I am convinced that The Guardian is a reliable source.  What I'm not convinced of is that the Guardian has significant independent coverage of the concept of "pro-aging trance".  I've glanced through sources and literature cited in the article and didn't find significant coverage otherwise I wouldn't have nominated.  This Guardian source is in fact an advertorial article written by Aubrey de Grey, hence non-independent and non-reliable.  [9] .  The second Guardian source mentions the term exactly once in a quote directly attributed to de Grey It is a difficult job because he considers the world to be in a “pro-ageing trance”, happy to accept that ageing is unavoidable, when the reality is that it’s simply a “medical problem” that science can solve.  [10] .  This is not significant independent coverage either.  AncientWalrus ( talk ) 17:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I added some more sources to the article.  Anyway, I agree with Maxeto0910: there are quite a few reputable authors using the term "pro-aging trance" - e.g. Britt Wray, Kira Peikoff, Dylan Love, Zoë Corbyn and Mark Schweda (all of whom are quoted in the article), plus explanations of the term are published in peer-reviewed scientific journals such as Rejuvenation Research , Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology and Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , plus it is cited in the scientific literature (see, for example, the works of Benjamin Ross and Lucinda Campbell).  The fact that most mentions are by the person who coined the term is not surprising: it is mostly being used by anti-aging proponents to describe society's allegedly irrational attitude toward aging, and the anti-aging movement is (albeit ever-growing) still small.  However, this is not sufficient reason to delete this article; I think the scientific discussion of the topic and the media coverage that the term has received should be enough to keep it.  There are a variety of other suggested phenomena which have also not yet obtained wide scientific attention and still have their own article.  Examples include Stockholm syndrome or, probably even more importantly, Bullerby Syndrome .  Just like pro-aging trance, these phenomena are received within their own field (though not outside) and some reputable media have reported on them.  So my conclusion is rather clear: Keep .  Aquarius3500 ( talk ) 20:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions .  AncientWalrus ( talk ) 17:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment As context for the closer, @ Maxeto0910 and @ Aquarius3500 are the two major editors of this article (post first deletion).  Maxeto recreated it and Aquarius expanded it.  I notified both of them of this AfD in line with policy.  AncientWalrus ( talk ) 20:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions .  AncientWalrus ( talk ) 02:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions .  AncientWalrus ( talk ) 02:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , it's an odd neologism but it does appear to have reputable coverage.  GraziePrego ( talk ) 07:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Would it be possible to state at least one source to back up your statement of reputable coverage?  I have not found independent significant coverage in reliable sources so I would very much appreciate if you shared what you found.  AncientWalrus ( talk ) 14:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  What about Should We'Cure'Aging?  A Reply to de Grey, Gregor Wolbring, Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 1 (1), 2007 ?  Hyperbolick ( talk ) 18:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Four mentions of the word in an article that has been cited 4 times?  Not sure this qualifies as significant coverage of the term.  Also this source was already available when the first AfD concluded merge .  AncientWalrus ( talk ) 19:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Price of tea in China.  Was it discussed before?  Seems not.  And "cited 4 times" is of utmost irrelevance.  Can you provide citation numbers for everything you've cited as a source somewhere?  And are you going to WP:BADGER everybody who disagrees with you here?  Hyperbolick ( talk ) 19:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you consider rewording your reply, in particular the use of "badger" makes me feel attacked.  AncientWalrus ( talk ) 20:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "If you have been accused of bludgeoning the process, then take a look at the discussion and try to be objective before you reply. If your comments take up one-third of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you, you are likely bludgeoning the process and should step back and let others express their opinions, as you have already made your points clear."  So...  Hyperbolick ( talk ) 22:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 1st preference: Delete.  2nd preference: Redirect to Aubrey de Grey .  A search on Google scholar of result from 2019 to the present shows that where the expression is used, it is as a way of describing Aubrey de Grey's views.  There is no reason for a separate article on it.  -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As pointed out by me and others, the term has received coverage from reliable sources (peer-reviewed journals, books published by university presses and mainstream newspapers) and the phenomenon described is also subject of scientific discussion (see, for example, Tom Pyszczynski's talk ).  Yes, it is true that a large proportion of the sources are either from Aubrey de Grey himself, replies to him or about him.  However, the same is true for Bullerby Syndrome and Berthold Franke.  A search on Google Scholar is not the best yardstick here and should at least not decide everything.  Instead, it would be more helpful if you could address my arguments (and the ones of the other proponents).  Aquarius3500 ( talk ) 16:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If a topic has received coverage in peer-reviewed journals, books published by university presses and mainstream newspapers in the last ten years, I would expect Google scholar and Google news searches to be useful.  The article has two citations to The Guardian - but one is to an article by Aubrey de Grey, and the other mentions it as a way of describing Aubrey de Grey's views ; it also has a citation to a 2018 article on the BBC that mentions it as a way of describing Aubrey de Grey's views .  I did a search on Google News to see what that showed, but as the search only turned up one recognisable link (a Forbes article about Aubrey de Grey) , I concluded that Google scholar was more relevant.  As for Youtube links proving notability - they don't.  -- Toddy1 (talk) 03:54, 12 October 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! 23:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . From the article's sources and the discussion above, I get the impression that the expression, although obscure, has been used, and not only in direct connection with the person who introduced it. -- a3nm ( talk ) 05:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , there are tons and tons of people who think it is wrong to try to slow or reverse aging.  We encounter all the time people who think you are playing God or you're going to cause overpopulation or other things.  In the United States, people who've been doing outreach for almost 2 decades constantly get huge amounts of pushback from people thinking it's just wrong, and that we are supposed to grow old and die and that growing old and dying is an important part of life and is the only thing that gives life meaning – among other insipid reasons – and that is the pro-aging trance.  People who just can't accept that reversing aging is something that can or should be done.  I can link you to an interview with Piers Morgan on CNN of Bryan Johnson, and after Bryan Johnson speaks, there's a whole bunch of panelists who talk about how what he is doing is wrong, and how they are happy to be old and aging and happy that they will die.  As you will also want a source to support a vote to keep, here is an essay by author Arthur Diamond (who should also have an article), which references de Grey in the same way someone discussing the Theory of Relativity would reference Einstein, but also adopts the phrase as valid in itself.  This essay was also published in some newspapers.  - WPGA2345 - ☛ 16:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Guerillero : Wondering why a discussion with six "keeps" to one "delete" (with some "keeps" backed by sources) would need relisting for "clearer consensus"; seems pretty freakin' clear.  Hyperbolick ( talk ) 20:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Many of the keep statements gave reasons that are either irrelevant or very weak.  So getting a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus makes good sense.  -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems like "clearer consensus" means something different from literally "consensus" then. What doubt is there that this clears the bar as set? Hyperbolick ( talk ) 09:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In Wikipedia, consensus is decided on by considering the reasons given by contributors, not by counting votes. -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A clearly referenced article with multiple sources over a span of time that is obscure but certainly notable.  I, too, wonder why it keeps being relisted when the consensus is so obviously keep.  It certainly appears that the editors are going to keep relisting it until there's an excuse to delete it, which is not appropriate.  Close and keep.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 15:38, 24 October 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: keep