Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Coles

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was No consensus (closed by non-admin) I'll probably get a clip round the ear for closing this, but as a neutral it seems to me to be an unambiguous case of no consensus. I've read and followed this afd with interest and despite all the changes to the article since nomination the keepers and deleters seem unable to come to an agreement. There seem to be misunderstandings, either deliberate or otherwise, on both sides of the argument. To delete would clearly be against consensus as would to label this afd a keep. No consensus may be an unsatisfactory outcome, but it does reflect the actuality of this afd. (If an admin wants to reopen this afd it really should be one NOT involved in the debate}-- RMHED (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Coles

Stephen Coles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

No evidence or assertion of notability, does not meet WP:PROF. The subject is an academic researcher, but there are no refs from independent reliable sources, and the article's main claim of Coles's significance appears to be as a co-founder of the Gerontology Research Group. The article was created by a member of the Gerontology Research Group, Robert Young (longevity claims researcher)/User:Ryoung122. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • In my opinion Stephen Coles does satisfy the notability requirement because it is highly likely that he has participated in more autopsies of supercentenarians than any other individual alive. The study of the causes of death in supercentenarians gives us significantly greater insight into the processes of aging and disease in the elderly. His contributions to the GRG which is one of the foremost groups studying aging and longevity are significant. He is also extremely active in efforts to increase funding for stem cell research. He participates in a number of editorial and board positions and has organized conferences related to anti-aging medicine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertBradbury (talk • contribs) 14:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the article claims that Coles is a "Professor at the UCLA", but I can't find his faculty web page. I find this where he's called " visiting scholar, Department of Computer Science", and this he's billed as "assistant researcher in the Department of Surgery", the only other reference to him that I can find in a departmental page is on the list of <$900 contributors to Donors to the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine ([1]). Other than that there's one article in the campus paper on the GRG (which the article describes as a group "which meets at the UCLA Medical Center" .... "once a month to disseminate information and to discuss recent news in regards to aging") which mentions him. Of course, he's mentioned, (as "L. Stephen Coles, GRG System Administrator/Webmaster") in this GRG web page is hosted at UCLA, but that page begins with several layers of boilerplate dissociating itself from UCLA, which is a bit odd. In short, I doubt the veracity of the article's first sentence, and therefore recommend deletion. Pete.Hurd 20:13, 11 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. Pete.Hurd 08:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L. Stephen Coles, M.D., Ph.D., is the Director of the Gerontology Research Group (GRG) and maintains lists of supercentenarians on the GRG website (www.grg.org; http://biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/59/6/B579 ). The GRG has become a recognized authority on validated supercentenarians due to the work of Dr. Coles and the careful research of Robert Douglas Young and Louis Epstein. In order to be certain of the legitimacy of claims to extreme age Young and Epstein require at least three documents that support the claim. These documents may include a birth certificate, a baptismal certificate, census records, and a marriage certificate to show a woman’s name change. I am personally acquainted with Dr. Coles, Robert Young, and Louis Epstein, and I can vouch for their dedication to present accurate data on supercentenarians. Many news stories cite the GRG as a reliable source of information about supercentenarians (e.g. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3071036; the Wall Street Journal of Feb. 25, 2005, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB110929999480364081.html; http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-12-11-oldest-person_x.htm; http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20031006/ai_n14564771, citing an AP story in the Oakland Tribune of Oct. 6, 2003; http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1970532,00.html; http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-minagawa14aug14,1,4586720.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california ).

In addition to providing a reliable source of data on supercentenarians, Dr. Coles has participated in the autopsies of four supercentenarians (http://www.grg.org/resources/GJohnsonAutopsy_files/frame.htm; http://www.grg.org/resources/Palermo_files/frame.htm ) and one quasi-supercentenarian (www.grg.org/resources/SENS3HTML.htm ). In three of these autopsies the cause of death was determined to be senile systemic amyloidosis, a remarkable finding if additional autopsies prove it to be statistically significant.

Dr. Coles’ accomplishments warrant retaining the brief article about him. StanPrimmer 00:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC) — StanPrimmer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

User:StanPrimmer has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Ryoung122. - Galloglass 12:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was trained as a geriatrician myself and have attended Dr. Coles' discussion groups at UCLA for years. He is an expert in his field, which is superlongevity in humans, and regularly publishes demographics on the subject in peer reviewed journals. I'm including three citations below by Coles:

Coles LS. Demographics of human supercentenarians and the implications for longevity medicine. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2004 Jun;1019:490-5. Review. PMID 15247072

Coles LS. Demography of human supercentenarians. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2004 Jun;59(6):B579-86. PMID 15215268

de Grey AD, Gavrilov L, Olshansky SJ, Coles LS, Cutler RG, Fossel M, Harman SM. Antiaging technology and pseudoscience. Science. 2002 Apr 26;296(5568):656. PMID 11985356

Now, am I going to be accused of being a sockpuppet? And by the way, you totally screwed up with Stan Primmer, who is a real person. And that's his real name, not Brown Haired Girl. So pot, kettle, black. Give it a rest, you hypocrits. SBHarris 02:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Stan Primmer is someone else. "Stan Primmer, a long-time member of the GRG and a Co-Founder of the Supercentenarian Research Foundation (SRF)," etc. Neal 05:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Please read WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets. Thanks to NealIRC and Sbharris for confirming that StanPrimmer is a meatpuppet. It's a pity, though, that we now have more than one person involved in the Gerontology Research Group engaged in this disruption, and it can do no good at all to GRG's reputation or credibility. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't YOU read the article, BHG? Let me quote: "As opposed to sock puppets, meatpuppets are actual newbies, and it is important to not bite the newbies. Users who are recruited as meatpuppets have presumably never seen the editing side of Wikipedia before, and some of them may broaden their interests and turn into productive editors. If meat puppets are disrupting a discussion that you are involved in, it is better to disregard them than to get angry at them or call them "meatpuppets" to their face." Don't bite the newbies certainly means don't block them indefinitely for being sockpuppets, which they are not. Stan is indeed a "meatpuppet" for purposes of this argument by the definition referenced, but admitting that means you people who blocked him are how obligated to admit you were wrong and now go unblock him, and also admit that you were wrong in the same space where you did your highhanded work. That's fair.

The question of "meatpuppets," itself by the way, deserves some discussion, but not here. I can only comment that I see no real difference between having your associates and friends come to Wikipedia to support your argument, vs. recruiting associates and friends to echo you, from among people who are already here, and post on your TALK pages. What's the big difference? Today's WP newbie is tomorrow's vet. SBHarris 20:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is Sbharris most all of these puppets are here at the direction of just one person who is trying to exploit this encyclopaedia for his own self promotion. I would have thought you, as a long standing contributor would be as appalled by his actions as the rest of us? - Galloglass 20:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fair question, I can see that it's sometimes difficult to draw the line between somebody's self-promotion and somebody who is promoting a cause by being a spokesperson for it. My sense (since I've known Coles for some years) is that he's more interested in promoting his passion, which is figuring out why the oldest people live so long, and how the rest of us can live longer. So far as I can tell, nobody has yet given him any medals or prizes for doing this thankless job (how would you like to fly around the world to autopsy a 115 year old?) but he's made some remarkable observations (such as the one about systemic amyloidosis perhaps being the ultimate limit to human life span) which I think will make sure his work is remembered. If you want to argue it's premature to do this now, fine. I wouldn't object if his material and that of centenarian tracker Robert Young were folded into the Gerontology Research Group, though I think there's a good chance that if this were done, sure are shooting somebody would suggest it all be split out again as separate bio material.

I suppose my real beef on "self-promotion" is that Wikipedia BLP inclusion criteria are hardly free of it, and most of it is for things which are pretty silly when it comes to importance. One way of promoting yourself is to join some organization whose purpose is to promote its members. That's why baseball Little Leaguers, professional wrestlers, and porn stars give each other endless trophies and awards. And these all qualify them for Wikipedia bios (look and see). Coles hasn't done that, although it would certainly be easy for him, since he's founded several organizations and help found at least one journal.

My other beef, as a Wikipedian, is how all these people have been treated HERE. If they were "famous" porn stars, it would have been better! Instead, we have Robert Young (a long and wide contributor with 7,000 edits) blocked indefinitely as part of the bruhaha. Another newbie, Stan Primmer, was accused of sockpuppetry by the same two admins who nailed Robert Young, and blocked indefinitely also. When it was pointed out that Primmer was a real person, the rejoinder was that, well, he was a meatpuppet. Which means that two administrators were admitting to not only biting, but mauling a newbie, AND doing nothing about correcting it. This stinks to high Heaven. So, as a long time contributor, what "appalls" me? Stuff like this. It's this behavior by administrators who should know better which hurts the encyclopedia, not a BIO of Steve Coles, for Godsake. Hope I've made myself clear now.

Sbharris, you refer to "recruiting associates and friends to echo you". Can you point to any example of where I or any editors other than Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) have asked anyone to come and post here? Diffs, please; let's have evidence rather than accusations. Note that anyone who wants to is free to watchlist another user's talk page or monitor their contributions: none of us has any control over who watches our work and decides to comment. "Recruiting" is a different business, it's asking selected people to join in and support a particular outcome. So I look forward to seeing those diffs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as you can show me the dif where somebody asked Stan Primmer to join the argument. I have no evidence that he was specifically recruited, any more than I have evidence that you recruited the same person to block both Robert Young and Stan Primmer. But Primmer does follow a discussion list, which is no different than following somebody else's discussion pages and comments. "Meatpuppet" is a very bigotted term, as I noted: usually it means somebody from another venue (in the outside world) who disagrees with a pissed-off Wikipedian who thinks they know everything important about the outside world, already. But in this case, notability among people in another venue, is exactly the issue under discussion. So all this talk of meatpuppets is very odd. SBHarris 22:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The recuitment has been happening at Robert Young's yahoogroup, http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People -- but you won't be able to read it unless you are already a member, because Young has closed the group to new members since he began his campaign. But he has posted a series of messages to the groups' 827 members, calling for a massive campaign of votestacking and disruption. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"calling for a massive campaign of votestacking and disruption."?? Is he really doing that, or are you putting words into his mouth? If not, I'd like to see YOUR cite, as I don't have access to the group you mention. And I guess you don't either. SBHarris 03:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the sheer volume of Ryoung122's contributions to related AfDs, you'll see that he doesn't do brevity, so I'm not going to spam this AfD with it all. But if you want to see what's being said, drop a note on my talk and I'll post some of the campaigning messages there. In the meantime, you have alleged votestacking on wikipedia, which can be shown by diffs, and I'm still waiting for those. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On your TALK page?? I woudn't be caught dead on your TALK page. Not only have I seen how you treat others there, I've also seen how you use it as an excuse to accuse them of harrassment. I'm not stupid. SBHarris 03:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let's try some objective documentation. Notability of researchers is demonstrated by the scientific third party recognition of their research. Web of Science finds 22 papers, of which the most highly cited is the one in Science mentioned above--cited a total of 12 times. The one mentioned in JGerontolA has been cited 4 times, the one in AnnNYAS has never been cited. Clearly not widelyrecognized by his peers outside his own institute and its publications. DGG (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe we're arguing about how many times a gerontology paper in Science has to be cited by other papers to be significant. What, is it 13 and I missed reading the cutoff? I know, you'll say "more than average." Do you KNOW the average? Or do you just mean more than the average of academics who get a paper into SCIENCE in the first place?? [Shaking my head about the surreal place Wikipedia is, where there's a full bio on some kid who pitched to third place in the Little League World Series, and was found to be 14 years old instead of 12....] SBHarris 03:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK, SBharris, here we go, some comparative data.... I searched in Web of Science for all items published in 2002 in Science (excluding news items and such that hardly ever are cited, I only included articles, letters, and reviews). That gave 1283 items. The most cited one has 1779 citations. The average number of citations is 100.23. The article on which Cole is a co-author ranks 966th. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.... So, no, it's not cited below average with a difference of just a couple of citations. It is way below average for Science.... In addition, this is not even a real paper. I looked it up and it is a 2 paragraph letter to the editor (something most academics would not even put in their publication list). Cole is 4th author out of 7, the least prestigious place. I see no reason here to change my delete vote, quite on the contrary. --Crusio 10:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dr. Sanjay Gupta thought Dr Coles was enough to be featured on CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/blogs/paging.dr.gupta/2006/12/supercentenarian-looks-back-over-112.html

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/health/2006/12/19/gupta.supercentenarians.cnn

That's a lot more than the 'average' professor. It's also not a 'self-published' source. We also find popular citations with bloggers and the anti-aging communities:

http://pimm.wordpress.com/2007/09/14/sens3-stephen-coles-on-the-secrets-of-supercentenarians-slides/

Hmm, University of Cambridge, UK.131.96.70.143 03:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. CNN and Sanjay Gupta...not reliable sources? Rubbish. Your computer not working? That's the basis?131.96.70.143 06:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Robert, have you actually ever take the time to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources? I suspect you haven't because your comment seems to be saying if a name is in print then that is a reliable source. Per the guideline: "A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Evaluation of reliability will depend on the credibility of the author and the publication, along with consideration of the context." (my emphasis) A passing mention of a person in CNN or a blog only tells me that the person exists and that is not in dispute. What is in dispute is, whether the person is notable, and those url's don't help me answer that question. —Moondyne 12:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the argument here is being made in conjunction with the WP:PROF criterion that An academic repeatedly quoted in newspapers or newsmagazines may be considered to meet criterion 1. A small number of quotations, especially in local newsmedia, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. Now, CNN and Worldpress are not local newspapers. And I presume it makes no difference whether the newsmagazine is a print one or a TV one? The point here is whether or not an academic has broad media recognition factor as being a "go-to" authority in some matter or other, not particularly verifiablility in the academic sense. That's something different. And Coles has that-- a number of peer-reviewed publications, but the argument used against him there is that these aren't cited "enough." But WP:PROF really doesn't have any hard and fast criteria, but it does give a number of suggestions of which any one is enough, and if you find an M.D., Ph.D. who is pushing at two of them, that should be a clue that he's not just your average Joe. In any other case I think he'd get a pass, but he seems to have gotten into the middle of a pissing contest which involves his organization (also under attack) and a colleage of his (recently no-limit blocked for no really good reason) and so it's gotten to be a mess.

I'll have more comments above, in relation to the "self promotion" question. If Coles was a real self promoter I supposed he'd be here doing that himself. But as it is, I'll have to do a bit of it for him. SBHarris 21:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into GRG. —Moondyne 09:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Hello Moondyne. The GRG article is also nominated for deletion, so you can probably cancel your merge vote and revert back through your strike-through. Neal 17:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks Neal. changing back to delete, especially in light of Crusio's new evidence of self-promotion and manipulation of impact factors as detailed below. —Moondyne 03:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, did I not add in the 4 tildes? Another shot. Neal 06:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]


  • Keep: Papers written by Dr. Stephen Coles stimulate others, how to live to very old age. See some examples of Dr. Coles's recent papers:

1. Coles, LS; Earliest validated supercentenarian by nation of birth; REJUVENATION RESEARCH, 10 (3): 425-426 SEP 2007
2. Coles, LS; Living and all-time world longevity record-holders over the age of 110; REJUVENATION RESEARCH, 10 (2): 243-244 JUN 2007
3. Coles, LS; Earliest validated supercentenarian by nation of birth; REJUVENATION RESEARCH, 9 (3): 423-424 FAL 2006
4. Coles, LS; Living and all-time world longevity record-holders over the age of 110; REJUVENATION RESEARCH, 9 (2): 367-368 SUM 2006
5. Coles, LS; Earliest validated supercentenarian by nation of birth; REJUVENATION RESEARCH, 8 (3): 201-202 FAL 2005
6. Coles, LS; Validated supercentenarian cases aged 114 and above; REJUVENATION RESEARCH, 7 (4): 271-273 WIN 2004
--Kletetschka 18:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Kletetschka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Kletetschka is new but interested in keeping relevant articles on wikipedia for others to learn.
  • Reply. - No actually they don't strengthen the case in any way I'm afraid to say. They show that he is an academic but nothing out of the ordinary that would warrant his inclusion in an encyclopaedia. For future reference I would seriously recommend reading WP:BIO and WP:PROF which give a good idea on what is needed to meet the requirement. - Galloglass 19:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that's a heck of an attitude for somebody with an interest in hereditary peers! Have you no shame? Coles actually has achieved something in his life by his own work, by earning advanced degrees and making scientific progress, not by birth to somebody with a title. But you just edited (let me see) William Molyneux, 2nd Earl of Sefton, supposedly notable for using his life to found a trophy cup for rabbit-chasing dogs! (And, actually, if you know the history, he didn't even do THAT. But I'll leave it to you to read about William Lynn, proprietor of the Waterloo Hotel, who was interested in increasing his guest numbers). The difference between us, is that I'm not out to get the poor 2nd Earl of Sefton, a giant hunchback who is actually notable only for driving a carriage too fast and losing a lot of money betting at the races. I don't give a damn about "perfecting" Wikipedia by removing some Irish buffoon from it. Sometimes people serve, just by being poor examples. SBHarris 04:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nobody is contesting Dr. Coles' qualifications as a scientist or denying that he reports without bias from a strict medical perspective. The question here is whether he is notable in an encyclopedic sense. That he clearly is not. I strongly doubt that "many people read his papers", because they are all published in difficult to obtain journals (unless one works at a University or other research organisation where the library might have access to these journals). --Crusio 19:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment REJUVENATION RESEARCH is a journal with impact factor greater than "8" in year 2006. Impact factor 8 measures highly cited journal with broad audience. Publications in REJUVENATION RESEARCH along with CV show that Dr. Stephen Coles is a notable person. This notability warrants recognition of Stephen Coles in an encyclopedic sense. --Kletetschka 19:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remark REJUVENATION RESEARCH has indeed the highest impact factor in the ISI category "gerontology". L. Stephen Coles is listed as being on its editorial board. I still don't think that this tips the balance and will not change my delete vote yet, but it starts looking like a close call. --Crusio 20:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question has he published anything other than the lists cited? There's a big difference between substantive research and a few lists. --23:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs)
  • Strange Something really strange is going on here. I can find hardly any publications by LS Coles in Web of Science. Most publications listed seem to be from somebody else with the same name. Seems strange that somebody who has published only some lists would be on the Editorial Board of a prestigious scientific journal. So I had a look again at Rejuvenation Research. It changed its name a few years ago from "Journal of Anti-Aging Medicine". Under that title it was listed by ISIS, too, but had an impact factor lower than 1. As soon as the name was changed it soared to the head of the pack with an IF>8. This is really, really unusual. Somebody with more time to spare than me might want to look into this. It may be true, but I do think this looks fishy, I have never befgore seen anything like this. --Crusio 00:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Impact factors and Rejuvenation Research This is an interesting journal. It is published by MA Liebert, a medium-sized respectable scientific publisher, both before and after the title change in 04. The editor is Aubrey de Grey, and, judging by the table of contents, it publishes mainly titles from his associates. There were 14 citable articles (i.e., non-news, etc.) published in 04, 20 in 05, and similar numbers in later years--but considerably fewer before the title change. JCR's IF is simply the average number of citations per article, and can be much affected in a journal publishing only a few dozen articles by a few widely-read papers.Examining the per-article records in Web of Science, it seems this is exactly what happened--in what was essentially a GRG house organ, they now also publish a few highly cited articles by people outside the group. Clearest example I've seen of this phenomenon. DGG (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snap. I started asking questions ten days when I found myself on the receiving end of a barrage of spam for nominating an orphaned category at CfD, and the more I have burrowed the more fishy it has got. At the very least, there is an awful lot of hype surrounding the GRG, and much care is needed sifting out such facts as there are. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blatant self promotion! Despite what I just said above, I was too intrigued to let this go. According to Journal Citation Reports, in 2006, articles that appeared in 2005 in Rejuv Res were cited 186 times and those published in 2004 were cited 98 times (these are the citation counts used to calculate an impact factor). Of these citations, a whopping 137 and 54, respectively, came from Rejuv Res itself! It looks like the self promotion that we have been seeing on Wikipedia extends to ISI!! (I could actually have seen this in Wikipedia itself.... :-) --Crusio 00:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and just slews and slews that mention him for a few sentences each on different old people
and there are more, I'm just tired of listing them all. He's notable. He may be notable as part of his organization, but he's clearly the public part of his organization. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. - I'm afraid the article as it stands contains too many statements that have proven not to be correct; not least the one which states that he is a Professor at UCLA. So as it stands I feel no option but to stick with my original delete. - Galloglass 18:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If having incorrect information were a reason to delete an article, then every time an article were vandalized it would have to be deleted. This is a debate about whether there is any "evidence or assertion of notability" for the subject, as it says at the top, not whether or not the article is in good shape now. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Continued). The Robert Young article has already been deleted, so that only weakens my vote for this 1. It should be noted that Stephen Coles's nobility for his GRG.org site is false (unless you think webmasters are notable). Sure, GRG.org has tables. But he isn't involved with making them. When the collaborators send Robert Young the data which he puts on MicroSoft Excel, Robert Young sends Stephen Coles the page, and Stephen Coles uploads it to his site! And that happens every week! In theory, Robert Young and friends could make their own website and upload their own tables, but that would mean being separate from the Gerontology Research Group, and I've suggested he become co-webmasters with grg.org and that hasn't happened. So I find Stephen Coles's nobility as a scientist then as a webmaster.

The Gerontology Research Group might also be a company, so I would find that notable (not GRG.org). I think the problem is the size of the small field of gerontology. Stephen Coles seems notable in the fact that his field is so small. I think he's as notable as my chemistry professor, but when you think of chemistry, you don't think of my professor (because there's so many chemistry professors), but when you think of gerontology, you think of him (since the field is so small). Therefore, having a Ph.D degree and doing numerous publications by default isn't notable on Wikipedia, whereas winning a Nobel prize is. But anyways, I'm voting for Stephen Coles mainly for the sake of gerontology (however small it is). That he may be #1 in gerontology but that isn't enough. But then, the people below him in the field are even less notable. In other words, I feel the notability for the field of gerontology isn't the same as with chemistry or physics. And I would like Wikipedia to have some articles on leading gerontologists. Neal 19:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete as a non-notable researcher and part of the GRG walled garden assault on Wikipedia. I can understand if he was actually medically treating the old folk but a genealogy number cruncher and webmaster does not make a notable encyclopaedia article. A "speaking head" tends to be just an entry in a journalist's rolodex and not necessarily someone of note. They are only there to fill column space and sound important. That does not necessarily equate to notability and is more often than not chosen on the basis of convenience. ---- WebHamster 03:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pete Hurd's analysis of his academic credentials, Crusio's analysis of his claim-to-fame Science "paper", and WebHamster's point about walled gardens. —David Eppstein 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per AnonEMouse and this list of newspaper articles... both those which cite him and particularly those which are about him. That's 'multiple verifiable independent sources'. Right there. Click the link and voila... absolute proof of notability. --CBD 23:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge but rewrite the article to mention the concerns above about self-promotion and the increase in the impact factor, but only if reliable sources can be found to have covered this alleged self-promotion. Carcharoth 03:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Is Wikipedia running out of Webspace or why someone want to deleted a lot of articels? Only because some admin don't interessted in this theme says that it is unimportened. A lot of people are interessted in supercentarions.

Statistician 15:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply I don't think so, n/a. Your 2nd question in your 1st sentence doesn't make sense, so I don't know how to answer it. What an admin thinks and what an admin does are different. And your last sentence isn't relevant for support, at least according to the Wikipedia policies. Neal 16:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment The rewrite indeed did away with a lot of the flab, but what's left still does not point to any notability. The articles listed are eminently non-notable. The info on the Maximum Life Foundation page (Coles' bio, linked as evidence that he was an adviser to the CIA) actually claims that he has 70 scientific publications, quite a bit more than the 11 in the Wikipedia article. However, if one searches PubMed, "Coles_LS" returns only 36 hits. Most of those articles are outside his claimed areas of expertise and have an Australian address: this is apparently another SL Coles. More smoke and mirrors again! If the information about the 70 publications on the Maximum Life Foundation site is wrong, then why should I trust any other information in this (non-independent) source? In summary, as a scientist this person is definitely not notable. --Crusio 21:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the NIH database of publications only goes back to the 1980's. Coles received his Ph.D. around 1968. The NIH database only has abstracts of articles on medicine. He appears to be active in many areas of research including computer science, and semantics. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment The patent listed in the article as reference 8 was accorded to LS Coles, California Institute of Technology. Nowhere in any other info about Coles have I seen anything about a connection with CIT, which seems strange. The patent is about a molecular imaging method, which does not seem to jibe with any expertise Coles claims he has. Any evidence that this patent is from the same person that we are talking about here? --Crusio 21:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Richard, you just changed "11 publications" to "at least 50" in the article. Do you have any sources to back that up? The hyperlinks you cite don't back it up. --Crusio 01:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And we're down to just one patent. I actually read the patent, Richard. It says it came from work done under a NASA contract. So Coles also was a NASA contractor? Or was this somebody else with the same name? --Crusio 01:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't even think about it. It is indeed a patent by the man under discussion, inspired by the first talk on imaging of DNA at the Gerontologic Research Group (that group being considered for deletion). "Doesn't seem to jibe with any expertise Coles claims he has" is a meaningless statement, since Coles has yet to edit his BIO, and is not claiming anything (if he did, you'd be crying "self-promotion"). As to what expertise the man actually has, since you don't know him, you can't really judge that, now can you? Not all his interests and areas of expertise will show up on PUBMED (to say the least-- the NASA and CIA contacts are real enough). In any case, the patent is his (and provably so), and if don't like that, or if it somehow doesn't fit into your worldview (laugh), well now that's too bad. SBHarris 03:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sbharris, I have no beef with Coles or anybody and I don't really like your remarks about my supposed "worldview". When I wrote about the expertise claims, I meant his bio on the Maximum Life Foundation site. So the patent is his. Mind you Sbharris, this is one of the few times in this whole debate that someone actually dredged up something that turned out to be real and verifiable. Thanks for getting us this information, this is a positive contribution. Now can someone please find some evidence that this patent is notable? Was it used commercially?
Concerning some other miscellaneous comments made above: The Pubmed database contains MedLine, going back much earlier even than 1968 (it goes back to 1950 and even has some older sources, too). Coles' activities in Life Sciences (gerontology) should be traceable in there. The Web of Science, which does cover computer sciences and such, does not list anything like "numerous publications" either (see above). Is there any backup of the "numerous publications" that are now mentioned in the article?
Above it has been said that Coles is retired from UC. Any verifiable evidence about what exactly his status was before retirement? Was he an assistant, associate or full professor? Was he tenured or a research professor? Why is he now an "assistant researcher" and not a "professor emeritus"?
Sbharris, contrary to what you seem to think, I don't know this guy and don't care about whether he's in Wikipedia or not, there's nothing personal here. I do care, however, that Wikipedia provides correct and verifiable information. You have made a start by providing evidence that the patent mentioned in the article is indeed his (and please assume some good faith here when I doubted that, there is at least one other LS Coles around in Australia). If somebody is notable, it usually is not too difficult to dredge up evidence of that. I have tried and not been able to do this in this case, I only found what has been called "smoke and mirrors", backed up by references to sites that were not independent of the subject himself (such as the Maximum Life Foundation page). If you feel that this bio should be saved, the best way to do that is to continue providing evidence of accomplishments that might show notability. Not by assuming that the people involved in this debate are conducting some kind of vendetta.... --Crusio 08:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking into the use of the "smoke and mirrors" phrase, and it seems that it was started by Galloglass, and then used by Pete Hurd and you (Crusio). What I don't see is any indication that you might be willing to say that you might be wrong. What I see is people overstating a position and then trying to defend it. I see Richard editing the article and improving it by removing unsourced stuff and adding sources for what is there. Carcharoth 13:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Carcharoth the phrase smoke and mirrors was used specifically to refer to the circular boosting of Stephen Coles academic listing uncovered by Crusio which the defenders of this article have either failed to address completely or simply tried to deny the importance of. This simply will not wash. Taken together with the hyping of the GRG by its members there is simply a lack of credibility surrounding both it and the subject here. - Galloglass 13:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I realise all this, but what you (and others) have failed to demonstrate is firstly whether this circular boosting was intentional (it is entirely possible it is an innocent side-effect of working in a small field), and secondly whether Stephen Coles has done this circular boosting. That is what I take the allegations of "self-promotion" to be saying. If what you really mean is that other people have engaged in smoke and mirrors, then you should say that. And please, a little less of the "defenders" talk. Wikipedia is not a battleground. We need to have a calm discussion here. For example, where has the GRG been "hyped"? The way I see it, an unbalanced article has been discovered following the Robert Young episode, and the imbalances in the article have been corrected. That is not sufficient reason for deletion. Please try not to lump all these articles together (even though I am saying merge them), and try and assess each one on its own merits. Carcharoth 15:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability and verifiability - I believe these two items are the main sticking points. In this case, the information now present in the article appears to be verifiable. Notability is not clear, but rather than lose neutral verifiable information, I suggest merging to another article, for example Gerontology Research Group. Thus my merge comment above stands. I am also concerned that allegations of self-promotion are being made here. If this turns out not to be the case, those making the allegations should have the courtesy to retract them. If it is indeed a documented phenomenon that self-references raise impact factors in small fields of research, that is a problem with the measurement method, not the people publishing in that small field. Carcharoth 13:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply The impact factor thing is completely specific to this particular journal. All other journals in the same ISI category of "Gerontology" (yes, I have checked all 36) have "normal" citation patterns, that is, self citations do not exceed about 10% of all citations received. Rejuvenation Research stands out as the only journal that artificially is boosting its impact factor. My bet is that this will cost them their ISI listing sooner rather than later. This is not an innocent issue. The whole world over, impact factors are used to evaluate researchers and employment, promotion, and funding decisions critically depend on these statistics being reliable and without artificial bias. In addition, I also think that most information in the article actually is NOT verifiable, because for this independent sources are needed. Most sources presented are not independent of the subject. Those sources that are independent (for instance the two sources listed for the publication record of Dr. Coles: Pubmed and the U Trier database) do not support the claims. And even after the information ahs been verified, we would still need independent secundary sources to establish notability. Thousands of people have publications and even patents. In and of itself, this does not make those people notable. It's the impact that their work has that may make them notable. This has now all been outlined repeatedly and I feel that this discussion is starting to go in circles and not much new information or arguments have been added in the past few days. IMHO, an independent neutral admin should have a look at all the arguments and data and close this AfD, so that we all can get back to more productive stuff. Whatever the decision of the closing admin, I for one will adhere to that. ---- Crusio (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man

  • Complaining about the journal and whether he was a professor is just a straw man, it has nothing to do with his biography, or notability, or the verifiability of the information in this biography. This is turning into a wacky conspiracy theory and a Wikigroan. 10 times the number of keystrokes went into this deletion, than are in the actual article. If everyone spent 1/10 of the keystrokes doing a Google search, they could have edited the article a long time ago, to everyone's satisfaction. I see as Wikipedia matures, its getting harder to find new topics to write about, so we satisfy our Wikilust by endlessly debating how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. ---- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote but not a vote This is a textual mess so lets summarize here, remember this is based on the current state of the article:

The article "is" notable and verifiable

The article "is not" notable and verifiable

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stephen_Coles&oldid=1255418779"