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 delete.  Skomorokh  04:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will Vladimir Stoyanov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable inventor. It's difficult to figure out exactly what's going on in this article, but there appears to be no viable claim to notability with references from reliable sources. Author saw fit to include references written by the subject's adviser--that's not how Wikipedia works. The reference, by the way, is an interesting read--I would have removed it from my portfolio. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Did anyone else notice that the MS-word personal references and the "Journal of Anti-Aging" link are hosted at the same IP? Someone editing under that IP also came to another AfD and admitted to being Stoyanov (as well as pulling deletion tags from this article and the one in the other AfD). This is vanity, and MS-Word documents hosted on the subject's website are certainly not reliable. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per above. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable and unintelligible content. There's a related AfD here. It seems the author has made it his mission to use WP as an outlet for a set of home-grown theories concerning the biology of telomere maintenance. Malljaja (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, there are no reliable sources independent of the subject of the article that establish notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Dy yol (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lots of verifiability problems, borderline crank entry. Hairhorn (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Autobiography by a non-notable individual. Also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/82.29.113.227. Fences&Windows 03:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly not yet notable. DGG ( talk )
• Delete Not notable. Google only returns six results, two of which are Wikipedia. -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 11:51, 13 September 2009 (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.