| Revision as of 16:09, 4 December 2015 editDavid in DC (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers21,601 edits ce← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:10, 4 December 2015 edit undoEEng (talk | contribs)Edit filter helpers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors97,954 edits clarify who's talking to whom (I don't want to get caught in the crossfire)Next edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| *'''Delete then redirect''' Since when is a single ] BBC obit ] in multiple, independent ]. Per ], everything of importance in this article can be easily covered in appropriate lists. This article can only be a ]. It should be deleted. ] (]) 15:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC) | *'''Delete then redirect''' Since when is a single ] BBC obit ] in multiple, independent ]. Per ], everything of importance in this article can be easily covered in appropriate lists. This article can only be a ]. It should be deleted. ] (]) 15:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep'''. The world's oldest person is clearly notable enough for their own article. -- ] (]) 16:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC) | *'''Keep'''. The world's oldest person is clearly notable enough for their own article. -- ] (]) 16:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::Notability is not the question. Please read ] and ] and comment in light of the recommendations there. ] (]) 16:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC) | ::::::Notability is not the question. Please read ] and ] and comment in light of the recommendations there. ] (]) 16:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :::This betrays a fundamental lack of understanding about the meaning of the word "notable" in Misplaced Pages policy. It is not meant in the colloquial sense. It's is defined for Misplaced Pages's purposes here: ]. The subject may well be notable in the colloquial sense of the word. But the subject is clearly not notable for Misplaced Pages's purposes. The whole article hangs on a single BBC obit and on irrelevant (and unsourced) "horse race" coverage of who breathed longer than the subject and whose permanent interruption of breathing led to someone falling short of the subject's record-breaking achievement. ] (]) 16:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC) | :::This betrays a fundamental lack of understanding about the meaning of the word "notable" in Misplaced Pages policy. It is not meant in the colloquial sense. It's is defined for Misplaced Pages's purposes here: ]. The subject may well be notable in the colloquial sense of the word. But the subject is clearly not notable for Misplaced Pages's purposes. The whole article hangs on a single BBC obit and on irrelevant (and unsourced) "horse race" coverage of who breathed longer than the subject and whose permanent interruption of breathing led to someone falling short of the subject's record-breaking achievement. ] (]) 16:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 16:10, 4 December 2015
Yukichi Chuganji
AfDs for this article:- Yukichi Chuganji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reads in its entirety (omitting the 4/5 of the article which talks about all the other people who were older, not as old, Japanese, not Japanese, oldest living person, oldest living woman, man, Spanish man, the name of his daughter, and so on):
- Yukichi Chuganji (March 23, 1889 – September 28, 2003) was a Japanese supercentenarian and the world's oldest man (and later the world's oldest person) until his death at age 114 years, 189 days. He lived in the city of Ogori, Fukuoka. He died as the verified oldest Asian man ever.
Recommend redirect to appropriate list, per WP:NOPAGE / WP:PERMASTUB. (The one (1) source in the article yields the additional information that he drank milk but not alcohol, and that he drank apple juice just before dying; I don't think that changes the NOPAGE situation, however.) EEng (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Afd of Yukichi Chuganji? I thought joke. there is no reason to deleted or redirected. as the reason, the previous AfD of similar record holder (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) result was keep, in the same way as this article should be keep. also, this person is noted than other people who was world's oldest person, because Chuganji is one of the few men to hold the world's oldest person title. (As women live longer than men, became the world's oldest person for men is very rare.)--Inception2010 (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete and Redirect per nom. What title? We established that people in China (1/5th of the world's population) can't even compete in this non-competition. Therefore at best the title is for "World's Oldest (except China and other places we don't like the record keeping in, and only because someone else they never met died, and only until further research proves someone else held the title, and not counting the 80% of the supercenturians we know exist but can't name or document) Person" Legacypac (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Legacypac Your argument undermines itself. You're entirely right that this is not a competition; We don't choose the winners but we do include those individuals who have been recognized in reliable and verifiable sources for some particular accomplishment or characteristic; that's what the Misplaced Pages Notability standard is all about. The sources here are unequivocal in that recognition and that's why the article belongs here. The bullshit argument that there is some unknown person who might have been older is irrelevant and should be disregarded. Alansohn (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep The question is coverage in reliable and verifiable sources, and they exist from multiple continents in major publications documenting and supporting the strong claim of notability. Our nominator has again resorted to the disruptive removal of sourced material via edit warring see here, butchering this and other articles to support his claims. Alansohn (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete then redirect Since when is a single WP:ROUTINE BBC obit significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Per WP:NOPAGE, everything of importance in this article can be easily covered in appropriate lists. This article can only be a WP:PERMASTUB. It should be deleted. David in DC (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. The world's oldest person is clearly notable enough for their own article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Notability is not the question. Please read WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB and comment in light of the recommendations there. EEng (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- This betrays a fundamental lack of understanding about the meaning of the word "notable" in Misplaced Pages policy. It is not meant in the colloquial sense. It's is defined for Misplaced Pages's purposes here: WP:N. The subject may well be notable in the colloquial sense of the word. But the subject is clearly not notable for Misplaced Pages's purposes. The whole article hangs on a single BBC obit and on irrelevant (and unsourced) "horse race" coverage of who breathed longer than the subject and whose permanent interruption of breathing led to someone falling short of the subject's record-breaking achievement. David in DC (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)