Biodemographer

Sandbox:

-- Biodemographer (talk) 01:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. This theory published in reputable peer-reviewed academic editions received coverage in many independent secondary sources. Here are some examples:

• “Engineering and Aging: The Best Is Yet to Be“ - IEEE Spectrum - September 2004, 41(9): 10
• “Human Reliability. We break down just like machines“ - Industrial Engineer - November 2004, 36(11): 66
• “Reliability Theory Applied To Aging And Longevity“ - The University Science News - UniSci, February 12, 2002
• “Life’s creaking machinery“ - The Guardian, UK - September 01, 2004
• “Engineering Explains Our Failing Bodies“ - Industrial Market Trends, - October 27, 2004
• “Aging, in Theory: A Personal Pursuit. Do body system redundancies hold the key? “- The Scientist, 16(10): 20, May 13, 2002

Hope this helps. -- Biodemographer (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

"reliability theory of aging" (exact phrase) by Google Scholar and "plain" Google

• Keep. Search for "reliability theory of aging" (exact phrase) by Google Scholar finds as many as 386 scientific documents (articles and other publications). Search for "reliability theory of aging" (exact phrase) by "plain" Google finds as many as 8,850(!) results. This supports the notability of reliability theory of aging both in scientific literature and among the general public.

The Reliability Theory of Aging is even used in the famous Hollywood movie "The Amazing Spider-Man"

• Keep. The Reliability Theory of Aging is so notable that it was even used in the famous Hollywood movie "The Amazing Spider-Man": http://www.themarysue.com/amazing-spider-man-science/

Why we fall apart?

https://engineering.purdue.edu/~ee650/downloads/Why-we-fall-apart.pdf

Biodemographer, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Biodemographer! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and a question

Hello Sam, Thank you for your recent kind decision to keep the Reliability theory of aging and longevity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reliability_theory_of_aging_and_longevity As you well know, this article was nominated for deletion by Randykitty, and there was a unanimous vote by all 6 experts to keep this article.

I have noticed that Randykitty also demonstrated a poor judgement on other occasions as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:L._Stephen_Coles In this discussion Ollie231213 found comments by Randykitty to be an insult and uninformed, while Blacksun1942 described them as hyperbolic and quite defamatory. I agree with them, and believe that Randykitty activities are both arrogant and ignorant, and they do more harm to Wikipedia.

I wonder whether there is any way to ban Randykitty to edit articles for the topics (aging and longevity studies) where he is ignorant? Please advise. Thank you! -- Biodemographer (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Theory versus author notability

In other words, you do believe that the author of this theory is even 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) 04:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• 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. -- Biodemographer (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)