Talk:Longevism

Response to previous deletion

This article was deleted. To prevent this from happening again, I will address the reasons that I was given for its deletion.

Longevism as a neologism

I reject the premise that longevism is a neologism. The term has been used in this form since at least 1998, and longevist has been used since at least the early 19th Century, as shown in the article references.

Reliable, neutral, and third-party sources

The article contains such sources. They include books published by reputable groups such as Cambridge University Press, New York University Press, and Penguin Books that talk about longevism and longevists as described in the article. Also of note is Hughes's chapter in Leadership in Science and Technology, a neutral reference handbook that clearly asserts the existence of the longevism. I even included some third-party sources that speak about the subject negatively, such as The White Death: A History of Tuberculosis and 1650-1850: Ideas, Aesthetics, and Inquiries in the Early Modern Era.

Notability

I believe that sources of Leadership in Science and Technology and The White Death are enough to demonstrate notability as described in Wikipedia's general notability guideline. I will address each point of the guideline using these sources.

"Significant coverage"

In Leadership, longevism is actually in the heading of a section that spans several paragraphs in the handbook. This is more than a trivial mention. No original research is needed no understand the content related to longevism in this section.

White Death includes an argument against longevism that is many sentences long, not just in passing. It is similarly clear and requires to additional research to extract its content.

"Reliable"

The reliability of these sources seem quite evident to me. Leadership was published by academic publisher Sage Publications under editorial oversight by scholar William Sims Bainbridge. White Death was published by New York University Press and written by scholar Thomas Dormandy. (No English Wikipedia page exists for Dormandy, but his German Wikipedia article demonstrates his notability.)

"Sources"

These are multiple secondary sources. The relevant chapter of Leadership is almost exclusively a review of other sources – making it a secondary source by definition. As a history of a disease that has existed over many lifetimes, White Death necessarily includes analysis of other sources, and the section mentioning longevism is no different.

"Independent of the subject"

As reputable, secondary, scholarly sources that do not advocate or favour longevism, the sources are indeed independent of the subject.

"Presumed"

Given the demonstrated qualifications above, Wikipedia's general notability guideline states that the topic should be assumed to be notable. Thus, if the article is to be deleted on these grounds, the onus is on those who want to delete the article to make their case.

Longevity "activism and/or studies"

I was faulted for not making the case that longevism is separate from longevity activism or longevity studies. However, not only does the article not claim or imply that the topic is either of those things, but neither of those topics have Wikipedia pages. Of course, longevism is related to longevity, but that is obviously no reason to delete it, and it is much more related to other topics anyway.

Promotion of longevism

It is clear that the article does not promote longevism more than any other article promotes their subject. It does not advocate anything or attempt to convince or recruit anyone. Rather, it just gives neutral descriptions of longevism and longevists and a small history of them. It is not opinion, scandal-mongering, self-promotion, advertising, marketing, or public relations. Perhaps it does help to popularize the term or concept by acknowledging it in public, but so does every single other Wikipedia article for their own topics.

Next big thing

Finally, I was told to see the page Wikipedia:Up and coming next big thing. However, it is irrelevant, as I never made any claims that the topic is going to soon become notable. Instead, my arguments above claim that the subject is currently notable.

--Haptic-feedback (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)