Talk:Leonid Gavrilov

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Chicago

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago

PROD

I concur that Notability has not been established per WP:N or WP:ACADEMIC.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the more horrible puff pieces that I have seen in a long time... But I currently lack the time (and courage) to clean this mess up... --Randykitty (talk) 10:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notable as a Fellow of the Gerontological Society of America -- 173.61.107.132 (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that the requirements for fellowship status show that this is not the kind of highly-selective Fellow that is meant by WP:ACADEMIC. The fact that there are about 900 fellows on a total membership of about 5000 (i.e., almost 20%) confirms this. And a scan of a diploma is not exactly a reliable source... --Randykitty (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notable as the founder of a new theory of aging - reliability theory of aging -- 173.61.107.132 (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That "theory" is even less notable than Gavrilov himself. I've PRODded it and will take it to AfD if it gets dePRODded. --Randykitty (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you do believe that the author of this theory is relatively more notable than the theory itself, right? So, if the Wikipedians decide that this theory is notable indeed, then would you agree that its author is notable too? -- Biodemographer (talk) 04:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cute, but not true, of course. --Randykitty (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has been established for the theory, suggested by this author: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reliability_theory_of_aging_and_longevity Once the theory is notable, then the same is true for its author. -- 128.135.235.49 (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. In the AfD of the "theory", there was an abundance of SPAs and a dearth of specialist editors. Even then, it does not necessarily follow that we need two stand alone articles for the "theory" and the scientist who came up with the hypothesis. The current article is conspicuously lacking in independent sources. --Randykitty (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Reliability theory of aging and longevity

Gavrilov's principal claim to notability is the theory; the theory is his principal achievement. I believe that both are probably notable enough for this project, but we surely don't need two separate articles – the man and the theory can be amply covered in one page. In any case, the relentless self-promotion needs to stop. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A merger (to this page) would be appropriate, as would turning the biographical page into a redirect (to here). NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A merge seems appropriate, also given the minimal size of the theory article. Gap9551 (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree; merged to the theory page, as that is a notable idea written by two people (so a reverse merge wouldn't work).

Done Klbrain (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

A number of editors of this article appear to have a close connection to the subject, and thus to have a conflict of interest. Conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, but are always welcome to propose changes on the talk page (i.e., here). You can attract the attention of other editors by putting {{request edit}} (exactly so, with the curly parentheses) at the beginning of your request, or by following the link on the lowest yellow notice above. Requests that are not supported by independent reliable sources are unlikely to be accepted.

Please also note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]