| Revision as of 23:45, 4 December 2015 editOllie231213 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,761 edits →Yukichi Chuganji← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:55, 4 December 2015 edit undoJacona (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Rollbackers63,681 edits →Yukichi Chuganji: !keepNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| *'''Keep''' - I think it is common sense that someone who was at one time the oldest living person in the world is notable, and even if there was no other reason to keep this article, then it should be kept based on the instruction in ] to use common sense. However, I think obituaries from major news organizations are sufficient coverage to show that a person is notable, and that he does in fact have significant coverage in reliable sources. The references to ] mentioned above are a misapplication of the guideline, since WP:ROUTINE is a section of ], and thus has no bearing on whether a person is notable. The point of WP:ROUTINE is that the death of the person is not a notable ''event''. Newspapers routinely run obituaries for notable people, and that doesn't provide evidence that the death should be covered in a separate article. However, such coverage in a reliable source is evidence that the ''person'' is notable and should have their own article. I furthermore disagree that this article should be merged or redirected per ], as that section seems to call primarily for a subjective assessment of whether the article subject would be better covered in a larger article. In this case, I think the details in this article would not improve other articles, and instead think that we are covering the subject in the best way right now (with a little information in articles like ], and some more information in a standalone article). I also disagree with ] in general, as I find stub articles useful and satisfying to read even when they can't be expanded; since it is an essay and not a guideline, it should have no bearing on the outcome of the discussion. In short, I think he passes the notability guidelines and I find none of the arguments for a redirect convincing. ] (]) 19:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' - I think it is common sense that someone who was at one time the oldest living person in the world is notable, and even if there was no other reason to keep this article, then it should be kept based on the instruction in ] to use common sense. However, I think obituaries from major news organizations are sufficient coverage to show that a person is notable, and that he does in fact have significant coverage in reliable sources. The references to ] mentioned above are a misapplication of the guideline, since WP:ROUTINE is a section of ], and thus has no bearing on whether a person is notable. The point of WP:ROUTINE is that the death of the person is not a notable ''event''. Newspapers routinely run obituaries for notable people, and that doesn't provide evidence that the death should be covered in a separate article. However, such coverage in a reliable source is evidence that the ''person'' is notable and should have their own article. I furthermore disagree that this article should be merged or redirected per ], as that section seems to call primarily for a subjective assessment of whether the article subject would be better covered in a larger article. In this case, I think the details in this article would not improve other articles, and instead think that we are covering the subject in the best way right now (with a little information in articles like ], and some more information in a standalone article). I also disagree with ] in general, as I find stub articles useful and satisfying to read even when they can't be expanded; since it is an essay and not a guideline, it should have no bearing on the outcome of the discussion. In short, I think he passes the notability guidelines and I find none of the arguments for a redirect convincing. ] (]) 19:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete and Redirect'''. NOPAGE and PERMASTUB apply. No substantive encyclopedic content to justify a standalone article and this will clearly never change. ] <sup>(] ])</sup> 20:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC) | *'''Delete and Redirect'''. NOPAGE and PERMASTUB apply. No substantive encyclopedic content to justify a standalone article and this will clearly never change. ] <sup>(] ])</sup> 20:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep'''. This man received not just local, but international coverage. The oldest person in the world is deserving of an article, not just an entry on a list. That's how we've treated other "oldest people", up to the last few days. ] (]) 23:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:55, 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)
- Legacypac, I'm sorry that you don't have basic critical thinking or research skills. He was the oldest KNOWN AND VERIFIED man, according to Guinness World Records and the Gerontology Research Group (highly regarded organisations). It's nothing "personal" against China, it's just that the country has very poor record-keeping systems. If you can't prove someone is as old as they claim, they can't be recognised as the official world's oldest person (otherwise, what's to stop ME from claiming to be 150?). Stop with the same old WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:45, 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)
- David in DC, this betrays a fundamental lack of understanding about the meaning of the word "notable" in Misplaced Pages policy. I don't care about horse racing, but we have thousands of article about horses, whose sole claim of notability is that they ran faster than a handful of other horses, breathing through their nostrils to run a few fractions of a second faster than their competitors. This is an article about someone whose is covered in reliable sources worldwide as being the world's oldest person, a claim of notability that puts this one individual ahead of several billion others. I don't give a steaming turd about whether or not you think this accomplishment is notable; what matters to me, and to Misplaced Pages, is that this individual has a strong claim of notability backed by appropriate reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe we're reading different articles. The only source referenced in the article I'm looking at is a single, routine BBC obit. David in DC (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- I see that after you wrote your "steaming turd" screed here, you added two references to the article. One is not a reliable source. The other is a second routine obit. Neither transmutes this dross into gold. Per WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB the proper treatment for this material remains to delete it and then redirect the subjects name to one of the appropriate lists. David in DC (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Don't get too worked up about Alansohn's lashing out; he's well known for it and mostly people learn just to ignore him. Discussion about this article's sources is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World's_Oldest_People#Persistent_restoration_of_content_not_source_to_an_RS. EEng (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- I see that after you wrote your "steaming turd" screed here, you added two references to the article. One is not a reliable source. The other is a second routine obit. Neither transmutes this dross into gold. Per WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB the proper treatment for this material remains to delete it and then redirect the subjects name to one of the appropriate lists. David in DC (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe we're reading different articles. The only source referenced in the article I'm looking at is a single, routine BBC obit. David in DC (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- David in DC, this betrays a fundamental lack of understanding about the meaning of the word "notable" in Misplaced Pages policy. I don't care about horse racing, but we have thousands of article about horses, whose sole claim of notability is that they ran faster than a handful of other horses, breathing through their nostrils to run a few fractions of a second faster than their competitors. This is an article about someone whose is covered in reliable sources worldwide as being the world's oldest person, a claim of notability that puts this one individual ahead of several billion others. I don't give a steaming turd about whether or not you think this accomplishment is notable; what matters to me, and to Misplaced Pages, is that this individual has a strong claim of notability backed by appropriate reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - I think it is common sense that someone who was at one time the oldest living person in the world is notable, and even if there was no other reason to keep this article, then it should be kept based on the instruction in WP:Notability to use common sense. However, I think obituaries from major news organizations are sufficient coverage to show that a person is notable, and that he does in fact have significant coverage in reliable sources. The references to WP:ROUTINE mentioned above are a misapplication of the guideline, since WP:ROUTINE is a section of Misplaced Pages:Notability (events), and thus has no bearing on whether a person is notable. The point of WP:ROUTINE is that the death of the person is not a notable event. Newspapers routinely run obituaries for notable people, and that doesn't provide evidence that the death should be covered in a separate article. However, such coverage in a reliable source is evidence that the person is notable and should have their own article. I furthermore disagree that this article should be merged or redirected per WP:NOPAGE, as that section seems to call primarily for a subjective assessment of whether the article subject would be better covered in a larger article. In this case, I think the details in this article would not improve other articles, and instead think that we are covering the subject in the best way right now (with a little information in articles like oldest people, and some more information in a standalone article). I also disagree with WP:PERMASTUB in general, as I find stub articles useful and satisfying to read even when they can't be expanded; since it is an essay and not a guideline, it should have no bearing on the outcome of the discussion. In short, I think he passes the notability guidelines and I find none of the arguments for a redirect convincing. Calathan (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete and Redirect. NOPAGE and PERMASTUB apply. No substantive encyclopedic content to justify a standalone article and this will clearly never change. DerbyCountyinNZ 20:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. This man received not just local, but international coverage. The oldest person in the world is deserving of an article, not just an entry on a list. That's how we've treated other "oldest people", up to the last few days. Jacona (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)