Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yukichi Chuganji (2nd nomination)

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.

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

• Strong Keep
  talk) 09:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply
  ]
• 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)[reply]
  • the Wikipedia 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)[reply
    ]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• 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)[reply]
• Delete then redirect Since when is a single
  WP:PERMASTUB. It should be deleted. David in DC (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There is no such thing as a routine obituary in the BBC, they aren't your local newspaper. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The world's oldest person is clearly notable enough for their own article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not the question. Please read

WP:PERMASTUB and comment in light of the recommendations there. EEng (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

This betrays a fundamental lack of understanding about the meaning of the word "notable" in Wikipedia policy. It is not meant in the colloquial sense. It's is defined for Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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)[reply

]

David in DC, this betrays a fundamental lack of understanding about the meaning of the word "notable" in Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

@David in DC: I would suggest you do not cast doubt on the ability of an experienced editor to interpret Wikipedia policy and guidelines and try to "explain" them to me. It makes you sound intensely patronising. I'm fully aware of the meaning of notability, both in the real world and on Wikipedia, and it would seem that the majority of editors here agree with me. Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happily, we experienced editors know that majority !votes are irrelevant to our endeavor. It's the quality of our analyses that should prevail.

Also, I'm ever so appreciative if your kind suggestion. None of us has a monopoly on the wisdom market and I, for one, truly rely on the guidance of other experienced editors on matters if civility. Most especially from experienced editors with sterling reputations for civility and collaborative editing. I count my blessings every day for the willingness of my esteemed fellow editors to countenance my failings in this area and to gently help guide me towards improvement in this area. Thanks, cheers, and happy editing, my sibling. David in DC (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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: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)[reply
  ]
• Delete and Redirect. NOPAGE and PERMASTUB apply. No substantive encyclopedic content to justify a standalone article and this will clearly never change. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.
  talk) 23:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Last few months you mean. And that was after a decade of sockpuppetry and ARBCOM issues. We also treated this as not needing discretionary sanctions but they do now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He was the oldest man in the world out of several billion and one of the oldest men of all time. Coverage in sources exist. Passes
  WP:NOPAGE being vehemently applied to longevity articles, but not others? Just because you don't find the information interesting doesn't mean it isn't of interest to others. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

"Coverage in sources exist".

WP:BURDEN suggests that you provide it, not require everyone else to prove a negative. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete There is a massive inconsistency in that the article's two sources (both
  WP:FRINGE theory that anyone believed that Hongo was the world's oldest man (making the whole GRG craziness more suspect). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I dont understand what you are saying here. Hongo is a female. How can she be the world oldest man?? Petervermaelen (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand if you think it is too short. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Really? the oldest person in the world and
  sixth oldest man ever recorded isn't notable? I beg to differ. He died over 10 years ago so sourcing will be more difficult, but not a reason to delete this page.--Uietueps (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Was the World's Oldest Verified Living Man and, later, Person. That is a pretty valid reason as to why this article should be kept. There are several articles about this man:

• Japanese Man, 112, World's Oldest (4 February 2002)
• World's oldest man celebrates 113th birthday (23 March 2002)
• Oldest man marks 114th birthday (24 March 2003)

He was also mentioned alongside Kamato Hongo as one of the oldest in the world numerous times. 930310 (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the key here is being verified as the oldest person ever in the world at a point and there are sufficient sources that verifies this. Vivexdino (talk) 05:15, 6 December 2015 (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.