Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 13

• Reply They are attributed to the "Los Angeles Gerontology Research Group". --Crusio 23:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply What lists are you talking about? The tables from Tables.htm? None of them were made by Stephen Coles. They were made by Robert Young and Louis Epstein, respectively, with exceptions. Neal 00:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Reply I was referring to the lists published in the "
  Baron von Münchhausen journal" Rejuvenation Research. --Crusio 00:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Reply Like you, I was replying to BrownHairedGirl. Anyways, I don't know a thing/never heard of, the Baron Münchhausen/Rejuvenation Research. Neal 16:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• keep per Crusio. While the article doesn't cite reliable secondary sources, I believe they ought to be pretty easy to find. I understand worries about COI edits, peacockery etc, but I think those amount only to content dispute, and the topic of the article remains notable. Stubbify if need be, but I don't see this as being a slam-dunk delete by any means (unlike some of the other related articles to come this way recently). Pete.Hurd 23:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC) *cringe*! I thought 8 was a high impact factor for a journal not in my library, I ought to have been more sceptical. Full props to Crusio & DGG. Changing to delete below Pete.Hurd 03:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- if the nom is in doubt whether it should be edited or deleted, the first thing to try is editing. DGG (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Done. In this edit, I have remove all the unreferenced hype and reduced the article to what can be sourced. There's not much left. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have now found that this article is one in a determined effort of self-promotion, going even way beyond Wikipedia. For more information on why I changed my mind, see the remarks that I posted at the Stephen Coles AfD. --Crusio 00:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: An "informal" group with references that don't stand up to
  WP:RS. If they were indeed notable it seems strange that they have to rely on a student newspaper to demonstrate it. As BHG put it, it's all about self promotion, it sounds like a case of "look at how notable we are, we're even in Wikipedia" to me. ---- WebHamster 00:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and Salt - Self promotional group of little or no significance who have used wikipedia for their own ends and who are now running a campaign to trash many good articles by way of revenge against this encyclopaedia. - Galloglass 00:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It appears to be a coathanger to link to other non-notable articles. - Kittybrewster ☎ 01:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, changed from keep, see above. Pete.Hurd 03:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I strongly agree with the nominator's statement, "Academia is full of informal groups like this, which are an important part of academic life, as vehicles for collaboration. But they are are rarely notable, and their impact should not be exaggerate by making them out as something they are not." In addition, there seem to be no real nontrivial third-party sources that would stand up to
  WP:RS. —David Eppstein 04:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Moderately notable and verifiable. Remember I am looking at the trimmed version. I am also formatting the references. They seem to be the source people go to to confirm ages of people, so they should have an entry. If deleted, and Wikipedia doesn't have an entry, then all that will be left is the puffery that is elsewhere, and no countervailing editorial control. Keep it just so you can keep them honest. They have 478 references in Google News [1] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • What material in the article is not verified beyond the member list? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 13:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • See comment below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to Closer Take note of all the changes made to the article after the voting to delete. Remember this isn't a vote, it should be based on Wikipedia rules for notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 13:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are a lot more references now, but none of them seems to involve any external assessment of the GRG: all commentary on the GRG seems to be sourced to statements by GRG members about their own group. Given the evidence of all GRG's self-hype, it seems unwise to assume that the GRG is a reliable source on itself. For example, the news reports repeat GRG's claims to be involved in research into the processes of ageing, but Crusio's search for the publications list threw up only lists, not substantive research. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your confusing Truth with Verifiability, if there is a source contradicitng a fact, add it. So long as all the facts pass the editorial policy of the media used, it should be good enough for here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) - Everything about this group is smoke and mirrors as has been shown by the diligent research of several people, especially Crusio and Pete.Hurd. I think the decider for me was the boosting of their own academic papers by themselves which Crusio uncovered. So my opinion is still Delete and Salt. - Galloglass 15:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Aside from "visiting scholar" vs "professor", what else do you have? I know from writing biographies that people have been misidentified by the title or rank in the New York Times and by the Washington Post. On one I am working on now the Washington Post called him a "captain" no other evidence backed it up. Sometimes people use the term generically. If newspapers didn't make mistakes, they wouldn't need an erratum column every day. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is not THE Gerontology Research Group ... its a group. There will be more than one of these. If the name was accurate then it would be clear that this did not warrant this article. Victuallers 15:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Richard Arthur Norton - the Google News hits are just too high for us not to have an article on them. If it means stripping away some of the content, then fine - but there are plenty of sources here, and we should remember that there is no direct correlation of any kind between the existence of a
  WP:COI and non-notability - just because someone in the group wrote the article doesn't mean it's not notable. Still I take the point that some of the mentions of this 'informal academic group' are trivial coverage, but with several hundred Google News hits alone we should really, easily be able to have an article on them.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - Yes the Google hits, even I was rather impressed by how they had boosted those. Still just smoke and mirrors. - Galloglass 17:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How do they boost Google News hits? We are counting the number of hits not the pageranking in Google. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - Richard I recommend reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Coles. Much of the manipulation by this particular GRG group is explained on that AfD. Nothing about this group meets the relevant criteria. - Galloglass 19:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I have read all that, how about the executive summary here, on whats relevant to this article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Then you will have noted this edit by Crusio which demonstrates how their self promotion works. - Galloglass 20:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What does that have to do with any references used here? The argument is over academic padding of journal citations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - I would have thought it was very clear, every detail of this particular web group that has been examined has proved wanting to a great degree. May I ask which criteria do you believe this web group actually meets to deserve an encyclopaedia entry? - Galloglass 20:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:RS is about the media outlets, not the information provided. The media outlets listed are all editorially controlled and reliable. Every fact has a reference to it. "Extensive coverage" means all the facts come from reliable sources so that the info can be directly sourced to a media outlet. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I think "Extensive coverage" means that the subject of the article ought to be covered (as in the "subject of") extensively. That's certainly not the case with most of the information in this article, where the better the source (e.g. the Modesto Bee, and BBC articles) the more parenthetical the mention. The articles with the GRG as primary subject, are in the poorer quality (e.g. the UCLA campus paper article). I see enough reliable sourcing to confirm the existence of the group, but that does not immediately establish the extensive coverege required to assert notability. Pete.Hurd 20:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Extensive means all the facts are sourced. No rule says all the facts have to come from one article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep The article is backed up by ample reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. The organization is widely cited in newspapers on the subject and has been recognized by The New York Times as "an authority on the matter". What more can you ask for in establishing notability? Alansohn 21:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Umm.... seriously people; "The 14-year-old GRG, which the "Guinness World Records Book" now relies on to confirm longevity records" & "the Gerontology Research Group, an authority on the matter". I call that non-trivial coverage in independent sources... The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times no less. It has been claimed repeatedly above that this group is just 'self promotion' and 'smoke and mirrors'. That seems somewhat less than likely; I say again... The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. However, even if it were somehow true... they 'faked' their way into The Wall Street Journal printing an article about them... it wouldn't matter. The simple fact is that they ARE notable... whether they 'should' be or not. Major newspapers call them experts on the matter. Another (smaller) newspaper calls them, "generally accepted as the most reliable of the longevity rankers". Other newspapers just cite them... extensively: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. Our standards require that there be independent verifiable sources indicating that the group is notable... they have that, in spades. --CBD 23:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query re: "The 14-year-old GRG, which the "Guinness World Records Book" now relies on to confirm longevity records", the claim was made on the Robert Young AfD that 1) Young was listed in the same way as any other person who mailed in a submission to the GBR and 2) that the GBR no longer reported the "oldest living person". I don't have a copy of the GBR, could someone verify that 1) the Guiness Book still reports this category, 2) that the GRG is cited as their official fact checker on this, and 3) that they have some status higher than the average person who licks an envelope and mails it to GBR. Given the misrepresentations and exaggeration seen in the GRG related AfDs I'd feel much better if these claims were verified by an independent source, one not taking the GRG at their word. Best regards, Pete.Hurd 01:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Again this is truth vs. verifiability. A resume is verifiable but doesn't always have to be true. Wikipedia only concerns itself with verifiability. If you find a contradicting source, add that one too. I don't know of any publication company that credits the fact checkers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Every single claim made in the article, including the one that Guinness uses the group to verify age claims, is accompanied by a reliable and verifiable source to establish and support the claim. Given the exaggerations and misrepresentations made by those seeking to delete this article, the demands for a verification procedure that exceeds that provided by Wikipedia policy is entirely unjustifiable. Look at the article; look at the claims made; look at the sources. I think any objective reader would agree that notability has been established. Alansohn 03:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • • In other words "no". When I write articles for Wikipedia, I do so by consulting sources. I look at text books, and I read scientific papers and secondary texts like books. Why is this an unreasonable thing to ask when it comes to this topic? Pete.Hurd 06:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment The website of the Guiness Book of World Records allows one to search the 2008 edition. If I search for "supercentenarian", nothing comes up. Searching for "old" or "oldest" renders such categories as "oldest male stripper" and "Oldest Married Couple - Aggregate Age", but no "oldest person in...." hits. Perhaps somebody could check the print edition? --Crusio 01:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • • • To answer some of Pete Hurd's questions, back in the 1990s, the GRG followed Guinness as who was the oldest person in the world. However, today, the Guinness relies on the GRG for, persay, the top 10th oldest person in the world. The GBR stills lists the oldest man/woman, however, it did not do it in the 2006 edition because of someone's retirement. That's where they hired Robert. To say the GBR uses the GRG as their official fact checker, well now Robert Young works for both companies, so they're not really competing. In other words, Guinness book doesn't keep track off the 10th oldest person in world, the GRG does, so that's where Guinness uses GRG as official trackers. And apparently, Robert Young is the person in charge for both companies. So they may come from 2 different sources, but both sources come from the same person. Neal 17:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
        • Thanks Neal, that's very clear and helpful. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 17:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, the only verifiable "misrepresentations and exaggeration" in the Robert Young and related AfD discussions have been the wacky claims coming out of the delete sector. The Guinness Book of World records doesn't really rely on the GRG... The Wall Street Journal just got that wrong? Stephen Coles isn't really a professor... The Los Angeles Times just made that up? Robert Young doesn't really work for Guinness... USA Today just thought it would be fun to say so? Sorry folks, I trust the fact checkers at the major newspapers of the world a heck of alot more than this completely unsubstantiated witch hunt... and so far as Wikipedia policy is concerned there is no contest; information in multiple reliable sources trumps this original research stuff (if you can call, 'I do not see a web page at UCLA listing him as a professor - so he must not be one', "research") you are doing hands down. --CBD 07:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Coles is not a professor at UCLA. At least not according to the UCLA directory lists a him as a visiting scholar in the computer science department. That's a very far cry from being a professor. If the UCLA directory is correct, then stating that he is a professor is a falsehood, and knowingly stating a falsehood is a lie. Robert Young doesn't really work for Guinness, right. Is he an employee? Does he doesn't get paid? Or does he just mail them stuff? Those are the open questions. Pete.Hurd 08:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking into this. There is a "Steven Cole" (different spelling of Stephen and singular surname) who is an associate professor at UCLA (see here). This may have caused some confusion. Newspaper fact checkers shouldn't be tripped up by this sort of thing, but it is not impossible. On the other hand, Robert Young did put the professor claim in the article from the start. One possibility is that he is a professor of something else or somewhere else, but the best I've been able to find is "Dr. L. Stephen Coles, M.D., Ph.D., Assistant Researcher, Stem-Cell Technology and Longevity Medicine, Department of Surgery, UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California"[20] (2005, presumably now at the computer science department for some reason). As for Robert Young, "senior consultant" can be lots of things. Consultants are generally independent and not employed, and the GRB would have lots of them. This is why we (or Robert Young) should reflect the sources and say what they say, not turn "senior consultant" into "works for". Carcharoth 13:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I discussed the evidence for Stephen Coles's status at UCLA in a 20:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC) edit to that AfD, including a source, hosted at UCLA, listing him as an Assistant Researcher in the Dept. of Surgery. I think Coles' status at UCLA is pretty clear, he's not a Professor (a member of the Faculty, an employee of the University with duties and responsibilities), he's a visiting scholar (non-faculty member, most likely not on the UCLA payroll, but with a status that allows him to be on campus, etc). Note: I had a similar status at a top-tier US University. At that University visiting scholars weren't given permission to borrow books from the library, special permission had to be sought from the library administration for visiting scholars be be able to use the library. It's a BIG difference between the two types of status. Pete.Hurd 16:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the trimmed article. No need to over-react to the original padding and peacock terms by insisting on deletion. The article in its current form has been much improved since it was nominated at AfD. See the changes made to the article. I suggest a relisting or withdrawal of the nomination. Carcharoth 03:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I came here to !vote delete but see it has been hugely improved by trimming unencyclopaedic and self-promotional rants. Well done to those concerned. —Moondyne 03:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be saying that poor articles should be deleted unless they are improved at the gunpoint of an AfD. Seriously, that is not what AfD is for. If you think an article can be improved, do so instead of asking for deletion. I've said it before, but AfD should be about whether an article can be improved, not about its current state. Sometimes it takes 'editing by those willing to try and improve an article' to open people's eyes to the possibilities of the "edit this page" option. Carcharoth 05:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please re-read the nomination. I nominated without a recommendation either way, leaving open the question of whether it could be improved sufficiently, but concerned that after couldn't. Thanks to Richard Arthur Norton, it has been improved, but it remains unclear whether the GRG-derived claims in the secondary sources can be supported by primary sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • That's not what I meant but can see that you could read it that way from the way its written. The earlier version of the article was in bad shape and I felt that it was unsalvageable. I was wrong in that by removing the extraneous stuff it became a tidy, neutral and well-written stub. That's why I said well done to the editors. I'm all for improving articles and if you look at my contributions you'll note thats what I do. —Moondyne 05:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK. Sorry about that. Carcharoth 05:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No need to apologise - you asked a fair and resonable question. I'll just try to be less candid in future. Cheers. —Moondyne 05:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This has been a very
  • ?? I think someone left a sentence unfinished! :-) Carcharoth 12:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was me; dunno what happened there. What I was going to say was that this has been a very interesting AfD, because so much new has surfaced once the subject was placed under the spotlight. However, we now have a problem to which the guidelines don't seem to provide clear answers: that the GRG has been engaged in quite a lot of hyping of its work, both on wikipedia and to the media. Several points of fact contained in news reports (such Coles being a professor) are not supported by the primary sources. In this comment, CBD asks whether The LA Times "just made that up?". I would be astonished if they did make it up, but that doesn't alter the fact that the university records don't support the claim. Which do we prefer here on the point of fact, the primary source or the secondary source of the news report? WP:NOR seems to me to allow us to note discrepancies between primary sources and secondary ones.
      As to how the LA Times came to get it wrong, we can only speculate; but one possible explanation is that the LAT accepted in good faith what it was told, and didn't check any further (it would not be the first tine that a newspaper has done that). We are not faced here with some of stark choice between accepting the word of major news sources as gospel truth, or on the other hand dismissing them as garbage; the real question is the more subtle one of to what extent we accept their reliability on this subject. There is so much evidence of self-promotion around the GRG that to accept sources as reliable in this subject we should look for some evidence that the facts reported have been verified and do stack up, and are not simply drawn from the GRG's own claims about itself. If we don't have that evidence, the news reports should be handled in a more neutral way, as a claim subject to verification. So instead of saying "the GRG is X", wikipedia should be reporting that "the GRG says that it is X" or "it is reported that the GRG is X".
      The reason I think that the guidelines don't help much is that I don't recall a previous case where there has been such a barrage of hype, and where usually reliable sources have been shown to be lacking. To denounce this as a hoax we would need a secondary source making that claim, which we don't have; but on the other hand there are solid reasons to question the reliability on this subject of the sources we do have. Can anyone suggest any policies or guidelines which address this dilemma? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Most interesting. My suggestion would be that BHG writes the guideline or policy and that it is then chewed over by others (and BHG). - Kittybrewster ☎ 14:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably been discussed somewhere in the archives of Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. Carcharoth 14:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is one, it's called

Wikipedia:Original research. :-) If you feel a statement is contentious or questionable, you can rephrase "<normally reliable source A> says that ..." or "<other normally reliable source B> writes that ...". You can not just delete the article because your own research implies that normally reliable sources are wrong. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

FWIW, I've come across similar issues in other articles, where a

WP:RS newspaper article parrots a statement of fact which is either demonstrably (or extremely likely to be) false given other reliable sources of information. Journalists sometimes get it wrong, or they present a simplified version of the truth... A draft guideline would wind up having a far greater application than it might seem at first glance at this GRG related material. If a sensible rule can be crafted, that would be very useful, but I think it's going to be very hard (but maybe therefore a very interesting experiencec at least). Pete.Hurd 17:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep per CBD. Remember, our mandate isn't to write
  LA Times, and so forth are pretty good for that, that's why we call them Wikipedia:Reliable sources - that doesn't as much mean they're right, as much as that the world relies on them. If it happens the GRG is a hollow sham with a successful publicity machine (Milli Vanilli), that's notable too. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

keep Statistician 16:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep I have been a member of the Gerontology Research Group (GRG) for more than 10 years, a fact that will undoubtedly label me as “biased.” Nevertheless, I will attempt to describe the GRG in a factual manner without hype or exaggeration.

The activities of the GRG can be categorized as follows:

1. Validation of supercentenarians, maintaining lists about them on the GRG website, and making this information available to the media.

2. Maintaining the GRG website.

3. Holding monthly meetings at UCLA on aging that include a guest speaker.

4. Operating a free E-mail newsgroup.

5. Related activities by the Executive Director, L. Stephen Coles, M.D., Ph.D.

Validation of Supercentenarians

The validation process requires that at least three documents must exist that support the age of a supercentenarian. These documents may include an original birth certificate, a baptismal certificate, census records, school records, travel records, military records, a marriage certificate, or perhaps others. At least one should have been issued near the time of birth of the individual, and others should provide evidence that the claimant is the same person as is named in early documents. This process may be fairly simple when family members provide appropriate documents, and census records confirm the supplied documents. It may also be very difficult when various records are in conflict or there are typographical errors or misspellings in the documents. The investigators also look at family records of the names of parents, siblings, and children to resolve such discrepancies. For example if the spelling of a name is slightly different in two different census records, but the names of the parents and siblings match, the subject is identified as being the same person in both records. Naturally, it is impossible to reconcile some discrepancies. Thus there are some individuals who correctly claim to be 110 or more, but who can’t prove it. The lists of supercentenarians by country are biased by the lack of birth records in the 1800’s in some countries and/or the lack of investigators to conduct research in some countries. A rigorous validation procedure is necessary because of many false claims to extreme age. See Table G, the “Table of False and Exaggerated Claims,” at http://www.grg.org/Adams/G.HTM for a list of those who failed the validation procedure.

The names of those performing the validation of each supercentenarian are listed in Table E (http://www.grg.org/Adams/E.HTM) and some other tables at www.grg.org. If any validation is questioned, inquiries can be made of the person responsible. 23 different individuals performed the validation of those listed in the Validated Living Supercentenarians in Table E as of Nov. 18, 2007. Of these 23 individuals, Robert Young was involved in the validation of 30 supercentenarians, more than any other person conducting validations.

The popular media frequently rely on the GRG for information on the oldest living people in the world. Examples previously given include the AP, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, ABC, and CNN. Local newspapers also refer to the GRG in connection with the birthday or death of a supercentenarian.

The family of Maria Capovilla saw a reference to the GRG that came from the LA Times concerning the oldest person in the world. Because they knew that Maria was older than the person then thought to be the oldest, they contacted Guinness World Records and inquired what documents were necessary to prove her age. Maria’s granddaughter told me that Guinness sent them a form that listed their requirements. The family fulfilled the requirements for documentation, Guinness had an investigator check on the claim, and Guinness then announced that Maria Capovilla was the oldest person in the world in December, 2005. Subsequently an investigator visited the church in Guayaquil, Ecuador, to view the original record of Maria’s birth.

The GRG Website

The GRG website at www.grg.org contains lists of validated supercentenarians, many pictures of supercentenarians, information about them, and information on other issues related to aging. It is maintained by Dr. Coles and Johnny Adams.

Monthly Meetings

The GRG holds meetings once a month at UCLA at which a guest speaker usually presents information on some aspect of aging or biology. Some of the notable speakers have been George Martin, Judy Campisi, Alexei Olovnikov, Ulf Brunk, Alexei Terman, Stephen Spindler, Peter Anthony Jones, Rita Effros, Tomas Prolla, Alexander Capron, Aubrey de Grey, Douglas Green, and many others.

The GRG E-mail Newsgroup

The GRG E-mail Newsgroup is an open forum in which users can express their views on aging or other topics. Control of expression is limited to non-existent. Abstracts of scientific articles are often quoted, as are news items of interest. Too often discussion of off-topic items is extended beyond reasonable limits. Nevertheless, the newsgroup is a valuable resource for keeping up to date on aging and related biological research.

L. Stephen Coles, M.D., Ph.D.

In addition to being involved in all of the activities listed above, Dr. Coles engages in several related endeavors. He has visited at least 6 supercentenarians that I know of. He has given a number of presentations on supercentenarians and chaired a session on supercentenarians at the Integrative Medical Therapeutics for Anti-Aging Conference in Las Vegas in October, 2004. As has been stated elsewhere, he has published lists of living supercentenarians in the Journal of Anti-Aging Medicine and in Rejuvenation Research. He has participated in 4 autopsies of supercentenarians and one 106 year old. Only 3 other autopsies of supercentenarians have been performed.

I hope this recitation of the substance behind the name, Gerontology Research Group, will help clarify understanding of the organization for those who are less familiar with it. I wrote this description before reading “A History of the GRG by Dr. Stephen Coles,” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gerontology_Research_Group, and therefore was not influenced by it. StanPrimmer (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to post this summary. I think it will be helpful to people in deciding notability. The discussion got heated, but I think there is some consensus coming on this group (if not the articles on particular researchers yet). Some of the contention came from the original article not being well worded, and that few university research groups tend to pass notability. But with the new phrasing/description, I think both issues have been addressed adequately. (already argued for keep below). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pissing match

• Reply Notability by the number of references in Google News, and verifiability because every fact is matched to a published reference from a reliable source. I think what this is really over is the articles written by someone at GRG on the old folks were systematically tagged as NN, or something like that. They got angry, and nominated an article by one of the people suggesting the tags, as a form of disruption, and now this is just further spleen venting and revenge against GRG. At this point it is just using the powers of Wikipedia to get further revenge, and its nothing more than a pissing match to see who is more powerful, all involved should be ashamed for using Wikipedia to get revenge and vent anger and frustration. The article has to stand on its own based on notability and verifiability, all the other issues involving clashing personalities are not relevant. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • You can follow the chronology of the bad feelings from User:Bart_Versieck and how the pissing match got started here: Versieck edit history. Here Versieck added a deletion notice to an article created by Brownhairedgirl. I think the cycle of revenge deletions should end, and the articles stand up based on issues of Notability and Verifiability alone, and the pissing match should end. It is not the first or the last time. Even Wales got into a pissing match with the author of a reference work, Jay Robert Nash and ordered that all articles that used his books as a reference had to be deleted. Does anyone remember that issue? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm so much for the
  assume good faith ethos eh? Ho hum. Bold always makes a difference eh?---- WebHamster 16:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Assume Good Faith, but verify. Humans all have egos that can get hurt, and people can lash out on both sides. You should probably avoid sarcasm, its not your strong point. The bold is to bring attention to a thread thats in the middle of the article [Note: Now moved here]. Wikipedia sysops should recuse themselves when there is a conflict of interest, or a possibility of the appearance of a conflict of interest. Its like the adage about Caesar's wife, even the hint of impropriety isn't acceptable politically. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Remark Richard, I take exception to your statement about this being a pissing match. I have not been involved in anything like that. I was actually on the verge here and in the Coles AfD to change my vote from delete to keep when I started to uncover all kinds of "smoke and mirrors". Even the impact factor of their "pet" journal Rejuvenation Research is boosted in ways that will probably get them bumped from the Science Citation Index sooner or later. If you read through the whole AfD debate here and the debate around Coles, what one gets is a systematic pattern of lies and deception. AnonEMouse wrote below "If it happens the GRG is a hollow sham with a successful publicity machine ... that's notable too." I kind of agree. But that leaves us with only three options: either we delete this article, or we let it stay as it is (fully well knowing that it contains things that are not true), or write in the article that this groups engages in systematic distortions (which would constitute original research, I guess). From among these three unpalatable options, I prefer delete. --Crusio 17:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The number of hits isn't relevant, the quality is. If they are merely "speaking heads", just there for a quote then that doesn't meet the requirements of
  WP:RS. ---- WebHamster 18:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. A few points here.
  1. I don't think that using a term such as "p***ing match" in any discussion, let alone in a headline does anything to develop a consensus. There is plenty of guidance that terms of abuse should not be used in discussions, and although I understand that Richard Arthur Norton feels strongly about this issue, I hope that he will consider editing his comments to make his point in a more
     civil
     fashion.
  2. I got involved in this issue by accident, when I discovered an orphaned [:Category:Suoercebtebarina trackers]] and nominated it for deletion as one of about 70 similar categories nominated that day (I found homes for a roughly equal number, and tagged lots more empty one for speedy deletion). What I didn't expect was a firestorm response from an editor who turned out to be the subject of one of the few articles in the category: screenfuls of copy-pasted google results, long rants, and wild accusations. So I got curious, and started checking. I found that the biography concerned was largely an autobiography, and been nominated for AfD before, and after being given time to improve remained full of unsubstantiated assertions with unproven notability. So I nominated at AfD, and found another firestorm, clearly designed to drive way any scrutiny. I don't like being intimidated, and by this point I was very concerned that with so much CoI editing involved from an editor who seemed utterly unconcerned by any wikipedia guidelines, that other related articles might have similar flaws. Many of them did, so I nominated some of them at AfD too.
     Now, there have been plenty of suggestions that I should have talked to the editor concerned, and I tried, but it was an utterly fruitless exercise. So I kept on looking, and revisited this article over several days, before nominating it as a problem without having a clear opinion on whether to delete, because I believed that there were sufficiently serious tangles around it that wider assessment was justified.
  3. You may call all this a "p***ing contest" (though apart from the coarseness of language, you might want to consider whether it's a useful analogy outside of an all-male environment), but I think that the question is more serious. When someone has created a
     WP:BIO etc rather seriously. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
     ]

• Argument: The citation index formula gives them a high score, because Rejuvenation Research use many references to their own articles. Reply: Thats a flaw in the citation index formula. Its no more sinister than optimizing your pagerank in Google. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• response the citation index is used to judge whether people are citing the research, making it notable within the scientific community. The Rejuvination Research impact fact numbers (whose magnitude was being used to buttress an argument of notability) were shown to be greatly inflated by the systematic self-citation within the journal. That means that the implied impact of this group's work on a greater community of scientists is entirely illusiory. It is akin to the wikipedia criterion for notability that reliable sources be independent of the subject. The inflation of the RR impact factor was not due to use by sources be independent of the subject, but by self-promotion. The chain of argument supporting notability is refuted if the proxy measure for notability, citation, does not indicate the use it is intended to measure. The inflation of RR impact factor is therefore not a tangential issue. Pete.Hurd 20:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, you have to demonstrate a few things first: (a) where is the evidence that this self-citation was systematic or intended in any way to inflate the impact factor? - it could just be normal citations to previous articles in a small field. (b) who was using the impact factor to determine notability? If it is just us, then we should realise our error and not use impact factors in cases like this (small field). If they were trumpeting the impact factor as meaning anything, then there would be reasons to be concerned, but if not, then we shouldn't focus on a flawed measurement. All this means is that we shouldn't use the impact factor to determine notability in this case. That's not a reason for deletion, though. We just look for other ways to determine notability. Similarly, with the Coles 'professor' thing. We just remove the 'professor' bit from the article and remove anything else that can't be verified, and work with what is left. Problem solved. Carcharoth 00:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I really LIKE this suggestion! We remove everything that cannot be verified. So what does that leave us? Oh, right.... Nothing.... --Crusio 00:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong. What you are left with is this:

  "The Gerontology Research Group (GRG) was started in 1992, and is a group of researchers in gerontology who meet monthly at the UCLA in Los Angeles, California. [1] [2] [3] The group tracks people over the age of 110.[4] [5] The group was co-founded by L. Stephen Coles who is the Director and Treasurer of the Supercentenarian Research Foundation. [6] [7] The other cofounder was Steven M. Kaye. [1] The Wall Street Journal and other papers wrote that Guinness World Records uses the group as its authority to verify supercentenarian ages using birth and marriage certificates. [8] [9] The New York Times wrote that the GRG has been recognized as "an authority on the matter" of verifying supercentenarians. [9] [10] The group started out as an organization to investigate the limits of life spans in all mammalian species, and around 1998-1999 they started a committee to investigate claims to find out who was the oldest person at any point in time.[3] As of 2007, the organization claims to be monitoring 77 people whom they have validated as living supercentenarians, 69 women and 8 men.[6]"

  That's called editing an article to fix its problems. Carcharoth 12:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coles

• Argument:
  LA Times. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• comment the claims to notability made in this article are just that, claims. Assessing the notability requires either believing what is written there at face value, or assessing their truth. The history of the quality of the contributors to this article seems spotty. I initially !voted to keep this article, but after examining the veracity of the claims made I changed my position. The issues raised are "tangential" only if one doesn't really care whether the claims made by the authors of this article are true or false. Pete.Hurd 18:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You're confusing Truth and Verifiability, and denigrating
  Wall Street Journal isn't a tabloid ... yet, give Rupert more time (tease). --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• query Qo you mean this? article by Jeffrey Zaslow, the word "Professor" doesn't appear in it that I can see. Pete.Hurd 19:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I pointed out that
  Stephen Coles is a reliable source. To say otherwise is to impeach the integrity of both parties, unless they published a retraction. "Professor" vs "visiting scholar" vs "assistant researcher" is a straw man to try and delete this article, Gerontology Research Group. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Since when are we required to vote twice on the same AfD? If any of us wished to change in the normal manner then we have done and would do so. Votes stand as per normal practice. - Galloglass 22:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing is required, nor has anyone suggested it is required. This is to see who has read the new version of the article, and to see if they think it fits either of the two categories presented. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the problem with the below is that it is "opinion based," rather than factual. So you put your 4 tildes in 1 of the below choices. This just causes confusion on whether the article "is" or "isn't" notable and verifiable, or whether in your opinion you think the article "is" or "isn't" notable/verifiable. See the difference? Neal (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Everything except mathematics is opinion. If "notable and verifiable" could be determined without soliciting opinions, we could arrange for a bot to make the decisions, and remove the human element. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but that just makes this article for deletion a popularity contest. Do you like the Gerontology Research Group? Then sign your name in the proper place. Do you not like the Gerontology Research Group? Then just vote in the deletion. In other words, people should be able to defend and support, and be responsible for, their opinions. But I see you wanted to summarize the above pages into the below. I think you meant to use "vote" and "veto" rather than "this article is notable and verifiable" and "this article is not notable and verifiable." That would be the easier way to sum up the keeps and non-keeps. Neal (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The article "is" notable and verifiable

• ---- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• --h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article "is not" notable and verifiable

• Comment - Typically what people do in such cases, when the article has been thoroughly rewritten during the AFD, is either ask previous participants to look at it again, or ask the closing admin to take that into consideration, when closing or even relist the AFD. Starting a new "Vote" section is not usually a good idea. For what it's worth, I don't see any reasonable closer finding a consensus to delete here, so I wouldn't worry about the technicalities too heavily. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. AfD is not a vote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thats why it says its not a vote, right in the disclaimer, for the vote. Its all explained in the new Orwellian wikispeak dictionary. Aside from notability and verifiability, what other issues exist, that concern this AFD debate? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Citations by a variety of national (BBC, NYTimes, WSJ) and important regional (Pittsburgh P-G) media sources suggest a notability substantially beyond a normal informal group of professors. The cleanup has left a mostly readable and reliable page. (May also be useful for the media who cite the GRG, since there seem to be errors by the media in understanding what the GRG is). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2007 (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.