Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kama Chinen

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 (fails WP:N, as significant coverage in reliable secondary sources has not been demostrated). Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kama Chinen[edit]

WP:BLP violation. You can check in Japanese or in English and you won't find any non-trivial sources in reliable publications to establish notability because she and her family had specifically asked the Japanese government to remain anonymous and they respected her wishes. A research body, however, dug until they discovered her name and age and published it over the Internet. As a marginally (if it all) notable figure, WP:BLP recommends deletion in this case, to respect the privacy of the individual. Even if there were no BLP issues, however, this article would still fail a basic notability test because, as I mentioned, there are no non-trivial reliable sources out there. Cheers, CP 14:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's actually not factually accurate. The government of Japan published this woman's name online in 2004 and earlier, and she was featured in local Japanese newspapers in 2001 when she was 105. Beginning in 2006, the Japanese government decided to ask individual persons before publishing their names in the annual Japan lists. This person is not listed by name since that time. However, that does not mean the earlier information is not publicly available...by the concept of "ex post facto" you can't put the cat back in the bag, so to speak.Ryoung122 02:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the practice of listing centenarians anonymously started earlier than that. In fact, if you check the 2003, 2004, and 2005 lists, you will find a number of anonymous centenarians on all the lists. In this case, this person was publicly identified in 2003 and 2004 but was kept anonymous from 2005 onward. There are several other cases where specific individuals were publicly identified in some years but not in others, but the practice was in place long before 2006. TML (talk) 06:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion on this, however the article provides for information about the supercentenarian. All information on the article was allowed to be displayed on other websites, therefore making it valid. Please keep this article for the sake of information. Thank You. ~~tennisdude92~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tennisdude92 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. BLP issues aside, where's the notability cut-off? Oldest person in the world? Oldest 10 people? Oldest hundred people? Stifle (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's not a good argument. What if we were to apply the same standard to sports figures? Only the top ten touchdown scorers in the league are notable? I don't think so. Anyone who's major-league is notable. If a supercentenarian gets press coverage outside their own local community, then notability can be established. Note that may not necessarily apply to this case, however.Ryoung122 02:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of lack of reliable sources. If reliable sources are provided, this should be recreated: surely such an old person with reliable sources is notable. Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Another false argument. The world's leading world authorities on a subject are reliable sources.Ryoung122 02:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Once Kama is notible enough she should have an article even if she wants to be anonomus. For lack of a better example: Steve Bartman. --Npnunda (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if the sources provided by the meet the stringent reliable sources required or any WP:BLP (I no nothing about the article's sources), notability per WP:BIO has not been established. The article does not represent that she has received "significant coverage in reliable sources" as need to satisfy WP:BIO. Therefore, the failure to meet the pertinent policy/guidelines combined with the request to remain anonymous makes a very strong case for deletion. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Depth of coverage does not appear to be sufficient to satisfy WP:BIO notability requirements. --DAJF (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.Kama is gradually gaining more importance due to her increasing age and possibility of moving up on the list. Please leave this article as is, so it can be used as more information is released. Thank You Tennisdude92 (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)tennisdude92[reply]

Comment.Kama is gradually gaining more importance due to her increasing age and possibility of moving up on the list. Please leave this article as is, so it can be used as more information is released. Thank You Tennisdude92 (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)tennisdude92[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.