Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsuneyo Toyonaga

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. Peacent 01:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tsuneyo Toyonaga[edit]

Unimportant person. The only thing notable about her is her birthday. Hence, she is listed at List of living supercentenarians. A list of the oldest people in the world and related statistics is important; however, that doesn't mean they all need an article. --- RockMFR 20:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being the 9th oldest person in the world is not notable in and of itself. There are a total of 97 English Google hits, most of which are either Wiki copies or lists of the world's oldest people. Also, as Robert Young said, with only a few exceptions, Japanese cases are only updated once per year, which means she may have been deceased and we don't even know it. Furthermore, there's no news coverage, which means that this article is not likely to expand any further than what it already is, and all it is is a copy of details from the list of the World's Oldest. If she ended up becoming the world's oldest, it could be expanded, but until then it should be deleted. Canadian Paul 23:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for different reasons. I believe that being 9th-oldest in the world SHOULD be notable in and of itself. However, the practical reality is that we currently are limited by strict Japanese confidentiality laws and a lack of Japanese interest in super-c's (except for first place). Therefore, we are constrained by the situation...there is little information available on this case and placement in the list should be sufficient.

Note this differs from a case in the USA or even Europe, where interest leads to local news coverage and enough extraneous information to warrant an article.

The bottom line: this article should be deleted be it provides no new information.Ryoung122 23:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No information that isn't included in the oldest people list. --RandomOrca2 17:01, 17 June 2007 (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.