Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanekichi Onishi

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tanekichi Onishi[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because of there being no biographical information about him and that this gentleman has not officially earned the title of 'World's oldest man' (yet). There appears to be no information (besides his birthdate) available at the present time, online. With ALL due respect to User: Brendanology, the source given is unreliable, primarily due to it being a blog. If Mr. Onishi is still living when he becomes the oldest man, he deserves an article. At this time, if there was more information about him I wouldn't have proposed deletion. Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are pictures available on the Internet. Old, but still. --Onewarmslime (talk) 09:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC) — Onewarmslime (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. I've referenced the fact that the subject is indeed the second oldest man alive. I don't know how we typically deal with world's-oldest-person articles, but that sounds like notability to me, and Reuters is a fine, reliable source most of the time. As for the pictures - well, yeah, they're gonna be old, given the subject. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im not voting one way or another, because theres good reasons one way or another, but heres why I can understand this particular afd, hes not even the oldest man in his country, and the source mentioned isnt even about him, its about Jiroemon Kimura, but Onishi is a supercentenarian which is a reason to keep. Longevitydude (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficiently notable. 1 incidental reference and 1 blog are inadequate references. If/when he becomes oldest in Japan then maybe he would deserve an article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cannot establish notability, even though he is the oldest man, it is one event and one event only, he must have a background history of influence or a potential background that would enhance his article and the notability factor, otherwise he should stay listed in here. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The oldest man in the world is Japanese and this guy is the second oldest in Japan and second oldest man in the world. He's in the top 3 oldest. Surely, that meets some kind of notability standard and if it doesn't then why doesn't it. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 15:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Blogspot? No, that is not sufficient for the likes of a BLP article. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO lacking reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 09:24, 5 May 2011 (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.