Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yukichi Chuganji: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Neptune5000 (talk | contribs) →Yukichi Chuganji: delete |
instead of wasting your time on afds, just nominate the project and have a debate on wether the entire project is notable |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
**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 [[WP:GNG|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. [[User:John J. Bulten/Friends|JJB]] 16:32, 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 [[WP:GNG|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. [[User:John J. Bulten/Friends|JJB]] 16:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' The only source in the article is 20 sentences long, which is not substantial coverage. Inclusion in lists is sufficient. [[User:Neptune5000|<span style="color:blue">Neptune</span><span style="color:red">5000</span>]] ([[User talk:Neptune5000#top|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]]) 06:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' The only source in the article is 20 sentences long, which is not substantial coverage. Inclusion in lists is sufficient. [[User:Neptune5000|<span style="color:blue">Neptune</span><span style="color:red">5000</span>]] ([[User talk:Neptune5000#top|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]]) 06:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' Are you kidding me, this man was the worlds oldest living man, hes Japan's oldest undisputed man ever, and one the the oldest undisputed men ever, you might as well nominate the worldsoldestpeople project for deletion if your gonna go after the most notable articles of the subject.[[User:Longevitydude|Longevitydude]] ([[User talk:Longevitydude|talk]]) 15:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 15:57, 6 December 2010
- 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)
- Delete The only source in the article is 20 sentences long, which is not substantial coverage. Inclusion in lists is sufficient. Neptune5000 (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Are you kidding me, this man was the worlds oldest living man, hes Japan's oldest undisputed man ever, and one the the oldest undisputed men ever, you might as well nominate the worldsoldestpeople project for deletion if your gonna go after the most notable articles of the subject.Longevitydude (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)