Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitoyo Kawate

Mitoyo Kawate

Mitoyo Kawate (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)

No evidence of the type of sustained coverage that would meet the guidelines at WP:N: there was a little bit of attention in English and Japanese during her brief reign as World's Oldest Person, with all other sources I could find being trivial and failing to be sufficient for a stand-alone article. Due to the contentious history of editing surrounding World’s Oldest People topics, it behooves me to emphasize that there is no policy on Wikipedia claiming that the oldest living person in the world is automatically notable. People will still claim this anyways (because people always come to these discussions to vote keep without reading the nomination), but it is not true; there have been at least six cases where an article on the world’s oldest living person was deleted or redirected through discussion/consensus: [1][2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. This means that “oldest people” articles are judged on their individual merits and that the only relevant criteria are the general guidelines at WP:N, which requires non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable third-party sources. I do not see sufficient evidence of that here in English or Japanese, although I admit my skills are lacking in the latter and will be happy to withdraw my nomination if a critical mass of material can be found by a user proficient in the language. Otherwise, any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 18:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Merge, also I thought this article was deleted in the past by a JJB nomination. Also, being the last survivor of an atomic bomb relies on the same claim to notability as being the world's oldest person. This information, however, is worthy of being merged to the article about Japanese supercentenarians, but not for a standalone article. Longevitydude (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This person is the oldest survivor of the Atomic bombing of Hiroshima verified by Guinness World Records. Other 7 languages of Wikipedia has Mitoyo Kawate's article. clearly notable. She died over 10 years ago so sourcing will be more difficult, but not a reason to delete this page.--180.49.194.2 (talk) 04:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Where in the guidelines does it say that being the oldest survivor of an atomic bomb makes you notable? As for the other wiki argument see WP:OTHERLANGS and lack of sourcing is a reason to delete this article. If sources exist establishing notability then the burden of proof is on you to provide them. CommanderLinx (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete/merge to whatever list per WP:NOPAGE. There is one (1) (ONE) fact worth mentioning i.e. Hiroshima survival (though even that's not clear). Apparently she wasn't even in Hiroshima city at the time of the bombing. The rest of the article is the usual nonsense about "reigns" and "titles", like it's the World Wrestling Federation. EEng 09:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Was oldest person in the world which is noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimney148 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh look! Another SPA! EEng 17:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Being the oldest person in the world out of 6.3 billion (population at the time of Mitoyo Kawate's death in 2003) is good enough and record holders of the oldest person in the world usually have an article (See Oldest people#Chronological list of the oldest known living person since 1955).

Nominator says that "there have been at least five cases where an article on the world’s oldest living person was deleted or redirected through discussion/consensus", However, there have been at least six cases where an article on the world’s oldest living person was Kept through discussion/consensus: [7][8][9][10][11][12] (note all the AfDs was nominated in 2015.) Inception2010 (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

And what that proves is that being oldest is neither a reason to keep nor a reason to delete. It's irrelevant. You'll need to make your argument based on relevant criteria. EEng 15:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Strong claim of notability as world's oldest person, backed up by the reliable and verifiable sources about the individual that exceed the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Fails GNG and SIGCOV. Article consists largely of uncited trivia and longevity fanfluff. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect to appropriate list. Article tells us nothing outside a list of (except she looked for survivors after the automic blasts and died of pneumonia). Two routine obituaries and a GRG table does not make someone notable. Per the guidelines at the WP:WOP Wikiproject she belongs on a list. CommanderLinx (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Yes, holding a title is worthy of a mention, but that's why we have lists. Not every title holder, however, stands out. That's why Jeanne Calment has an article very worthy of an encyclopedia while Anitica Butariu on the other hand would only be notable to avid fans of longevity and supercentenarians. Some conflict from years ago happened not because of difference in opinion but in the vilifying of people on the other side of deletion discussions. I think CP and Derby mean well and are doing their best to make wikipedia look professional and balanced concerning all wikipedia projects. It's not that they hate old people, they probably don't want it to look like wikipedia as a whole is partial to certain fields of interest over others. We should work together and come to mutual agreements. Longevitydude (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• I was wondering what Canadian Paul's opinions are on the References attached to the article. One of them is from the Associated Press, another from CNN. Do they count as third party sources? I'll let the readers decide. Longevitydude (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• [another source] I would like to point out. Longevitydude (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)