Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiyo Miyako (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.

The result was delete. With one exception, the "keep" opinions amount to "notable because the oldest". Policy and practice reject this notion, which is not reflected in guidelines such as WP:BIO. These opinions therefore need to be discounted. Sandstein 12:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chiyo Miyako[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ms. Miyako's only claim to notability is to have been the world's oldest known person for 3 months. The article offers no significant information about her life apart from her exceptional longevity. We have numerous tables documenting longevity records, therefore this article should either be deleted per WP:NOPAGE or redirected to List of Japanese supercentenarians to keep her name visible in search results. — JFG ^talk 09:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only sparse WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia on her husband and her secret to longevity, with mundane record details tossed in to pad the article. She lived. She avoided the Reaper longer then most. She died. Pure case of WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on four different lists, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 11:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the comments I made at the DRV. No need to rehash them. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article was nominated for deletion just two months ago and the result was "Keep", no reason to think otherwise as nothing has changed since then. Oldest person in the world, reaching the age of 117 that little can imagine to reach. I also note that the users voting for "Delete" were the same last time round as this time round, which does not seem to be the "consensus" that Wikipedia aims to achieve. Besides certain recurring characters always voting to delete, consensus of the general community seem to be to keep this article, as per the previous nomination. Also meets WP:GNG clearly, reported extensively not only in her native Japan, but all over the world in other languages. Not a case of WP:ROUTINE, coverage outside routine coverage is present. I offer an example [1], an interview of Ms Miyako due to the interest of the general population in her longevity. DonBogdan 12:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sources basically say she had a pulse. I have a pulse too. But I'm not notable. And the previous discussion took place at a time when longevity SPAs had skewed the "community consensus" to a ridiculous extreme, and engaged in massive off-wiki canvassing that irretrievably distorted the discussions on Miyako; now that they're gone it's entirely logical to have a discussion without their noise. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to correct, the first AFD closed as delete and was then overturned to no consensus at deletion review. I also provided screenshots in the DRV that showed there was off wiki canvassing that occured on the 110 club forum. CommanderLinx (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The world's oldest person at her death and still one of the oldest ten EVER ... either one of those ought to be considered so notable as to prohibit AfDs. LE (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC) — LE (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There is no notability guideline or policy that the "oldest x" is notable or entitled to an article. Your argument is pure WP:ILIKEIT. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there is no official guideline or policy that is specifically designed to apply to "oldest x," doesn't mean that "oldest x" isn't entitled to an article. As long as "oldest x" passes the General Notability guideline, there shouldn't be any issue. --DaKardii (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is not the wiki of super old people with no notablity. Let the 110'people set upntheir own wiki and run their own rules. WP:NOPAGE applies. Legacypac (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is certainly notable. She was the WOP and in the top 10 oldest people ever. People can be notable for their longevity. RightGot (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC) — RightGot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There is no notability guideline or policy that the "oldest x" is notable or entitled to an article. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the DRV is here, for clarity. My comments are right in the middle, as above in this conversation I reaffirm my view. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She was the world's oldest person --- makes her notable imo. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 21:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no notability guideline or policy that the "oldest x" is notable or entitled to an article. Your argument is pure WP:ILIKEIT. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there is no official guideline or policy that is specifically designed to apply to "oldest x," doesn't mean that "oldest x" isn't entitled to an article. As long as "oldest x" passes the General Notability guideline, there shouldn't be any issue.--DaKardii (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And there is no agreement that it does. Nothing about having a pulse is inherently notable, it's all about whether reliable sources write about it. In this case, the sources basically say "she lived", which is not, itself, remarkable, hence there's WP:NOPAGE to write here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have only been active in Wikipedia for a very short time, and I am already very tired of being bombarded with AfDs for supercentenarians. It is possible to show that some have received significant, sustained coverage in reliable sources, while others have not (and therefore that some meet WP:GNG and some don't). It does not seem to me that the nominators of these AfDs do much WP:BEFORE, and the rate at which these articles are being nominated makes it very difficult to research each to determine whether there is other information and other sources which have not yet been included in the articles. Some of the "keep" articles may not be policy-based, but many of the "delete" arguments are based on the quality of the article as it stands, and the fact that there is no notability guideline on extreme age, rather than assessing whether "many sources exist, but simply have not been included yet." WP:PAGEDECIDE RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place to lay out all the details, but I'd be happy to do so at WT:WikiProject Longevity where there's more space. There is a very long history with these articles and their use as a combination of overt self-promotion and as a way of making this into some sort of tournament (look at the history of Talk:Chiyo Miyako for an especially egregious example of the latter), so the AfDs are a long-overdue correction to that. This article specifically has a lot of the hallmarks of the long-standing issues in this topic, and the first discussion and DRV lay it out in more detail than most of these. And part of the idea of these AfDs is trying to figure out what the criteria are, again there's a lot of history behind this but it used to be way overbroad; it seemed a bit presumptuous to come up with something without any fresh discussions on which to base it, hence the current spate of them. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to appropriate list. WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB should almost certainly apply here. There is absolutely nothing to say about her other than she was born, got married to a husband who traveled a lot, she liked eel, became the oldest in the world and then died. Majority of the article restates table info easily seen and better handled in Oldest people. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is important to keep track of the WOP Petervermaelen (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a blast from the past, the GRG people are starting to come out here in full force with the same old tired arguments. Thankfully, policy says otherwise. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does "keep track of the WOP" (World's Oldest Person) at List of the verified oldest people, List of the oldest living people, List of the oldest people by country and numerous national lists of oldest people in country X, e.g. Japan. Individual articles that have nothing more to say than "name, nationality, date of birth, date of death, age, favorite food, longevity tips" are best handled as entries on a list. — JFG ^talk 22:58, 26 November 2018 (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.