| Revision as of 11:33, 5 December 2010 editJc iindyysgvxc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,492 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:32, 5 December 2010 edit undoJohn J. Bulten (talk | contribs)12,763 edits →Yukichi ChuganjiNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| *<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- ] (]) 07:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)</small> | *<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- ] (]) 07:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)</small> | ||
| *'''Keep.''' He was, at one point, the oldest living man, and may have also been the oldest living person (a title that is not often held by males). ] ] (]) 11:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC) | *'''Keep.''' He was, at one point, the oldest living man, and may have also been the oldest living person (a title that is not often held by males). ] ] (]) 11:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC) | ||
| **jc, your contributions to three AFDs each argue based on an implied belief in "inherent notability" for the individual criteria you state. While further consensus is still sought at the discussion link in the nom, I believe it established that there is no consensus for biography-level notability inhering in single-source cases on such broad criteria: the few cases truly inherently notable also turn out to be ]. Consensus indicates instead that these individuals have only line-item notability, i.e., one reliable source would permit the individual to be (only) a line-item in one or more list articles: and in all three of your cases, the individual is in at least ''seven WP lists already'', which is still excessive. ] 16:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:32, 5 December 2010
Yukichi Chuganji
- Yukichi Chuganji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Continuing nominations of nonnotable supercentenarians with no more than one reliable source per WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. I intend that, during discussion, any article supporters either find sources or merge sourced material to deal with the indisputable WP:GNG failure (the requirement of multiple reliable sources); without either of these actions, bare "keep" votes will not address that failure. I also intend that any who disagree with the WT:WOP proposal, which affirms GNG for deletion of these articles, should comment at that link. Article-specific details with my !vote below. JJB 05:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as nom 5-sentence article completely about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN. Only source is one 20-sentence BBC article that does not support most of the material in the WP article (unsourced research presumably by GRG members) and is insufficient to demonstrate notability. Citation lack already tagged in article since 11/2007. JJB 05:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. He was, at one point, the oldest living man, and may have also been the oldest living person (a title that is not often held by males). jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 11:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- jc, your contributions to three AFDs each argue based on an implied belief in "inherent notability" for the individual criteria you state. While further consensus is still sought at the discussion link in the nom, I believe it established that there is no consensus for biography-level notability inhering in single-source cases on such broad criteria: the few cases truly inherently notable also turn out to be generally notable. Consensus indicates instead that these individuals have only line-item notability, i.e., one reliable source would permit the individual to be (only) a line-item in one or more list articles: and in all three of your cases, the individual is in at least seven WP lists already, which is still excessive. JJB 16:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)