Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yukichi Chuganji (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 keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 03:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yukichi Chuganji[edit]

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

Reads in its entirety (omitting the 4/5 of the article which talks about all the other people who were older, not as old, Japanese, not Japanese, oldest living person, oldest living woman, man, Spanish man, the name of his daughter, and so on):

Yukichi Chuganji (March 23, 1889 – September 28, 2003) was a Japanese supercentenarian and the world's oldest man (and later the world's oldest person) until his death at age 114 years, 189 days. He lived in the city of Ogori, Fukuoka. He died as the verified oldest Asian man ever.

Recommend redirect to appropriate list, per WP:NOPAGE / WP:PERMASTUB. (The one (1) source in the article yields the additional information that he drank milk but not alcohol, and that he drank apple juice just before dying; I don't think that changes the NOPAGE situation, however.) EEng (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Afd of Yukichi Chuganji? I thought joke. there is no reason to deleted or redirected. as the reason, the previous AfD of similar record holder (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) result was keep, in the same way as this article should be keep. also, this person is noted than other people who was world's oldest person, because Chuganji is one of the few men to hold the world's oldest person title. (As women live longer than men, became the world's oldest person for men is very rare.)--Inception2010 (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Delete and Redirect per nom. What title? We established that people in China (1/5th of the world's population) can't even compete in this non-competition. Therefore at best the title is for "World's Oldest (except China and other places we don't like the record keeping in, and only because someone else they never met died, and only until further research proves someone else held the title, and not counting the 80% of the supercenturians we know exist but can't name or document) Person" Legacypac (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Legacypac Your argument undermines itself. You're entirely right that this is not a competition; We don't choose the winners but we do include those individuals who have been recognized in reliable and verifiable sources for some particular accomplishment or characteristic; that's what the Wikipedia Notability standard is all about. The sources here are unequivocal in that recognition and that's why the article belongs here. The bullshit argument that there is some unknown person who might have been older is irrelevant and should be disregarded. Alansohn (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac, I'm sorry that you don't have basic critical thinking or research skills. He was the oldest KNOWN AND VERIFIED man, according to Guinness World Records and the Gerontology Research Group (highly regarded organisations). It's nothing "personal" against China, it's just that the country has very poor record-keeping systems. If you can't prove someone is as old as they claim, they can't be recognised as the official world's oldest person (otherwise, what's to stop ME from claiming to be 150?). Stop with the same old WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The question is coverage in reliable and verifiable sources, and they exist from multiple continents in major publications documenting and supporting the strong claim of notability. Our nominator has again resorted to the disruptive removal of sourced material via edit warring see here, butchering this and other articles to support his claims. Alansohn (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect Since when is a single WP:ROUTINE BBC obit significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Per WP:NOPAGE, everything of importance in this article can be easily covered in appropriate lists. This article can only be a WP:PERMASTUB. It should be deleted. David in DC (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a routine obituary in the BBC, they aren't your local newspaper. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The world's oldest person is clearly notable enough for their own article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not the question. Please read WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB and comment in light of the recommendations there. EEng (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This betrays a fundamental lack of understanding about the meaning of the word "notable" in Wikipedia policy. It is not meant in the colloquial sense. It's is defined for Wikipedia's purposes here: WP:N. The subject may well be notable in the colloquial sense of the word. But the subject is clearly not notable for Wikipedia's purposes. The whole article hangs on a single BBC obit and on irrelevant (and unsourced) "horse race" coverage of who breathed longer than the subject and whose permanent interruption of breathing led to someone falling short of the subject's record-breaking achievement. David in DC (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David in DC, this betrays a fundamental lack of understanding about the meaning of the word "notable" in Wikipedia policy. I don't care about horse racing, but we have thousands of article about horses, whose sole claim of notability is that they ran faster than a handful of other horses, breathing through their nostrils to run a few fractions of a second faster than their competitors. This is an article about someone whose is covered in reliable sources worldwide as being the world's oldest person, a claim of notability that puts this one individual ahead of several billion others. I don't give a steaming turd about whether or not you think this accomplishment is notable; what matters to me, and to Wikipedia, is that this individual has a strong claim of notability backed by appropriate reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we're reading different articles. The only source referenced in the article I'm looking at is a single, routine BBC obit. David in DC (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that after you wrote your "steaming turd" screed here, you added two references to the article. One is not a reliable source. The other is a second routine obit. Neither transmutes this dross into gold. Per WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB the proper treatment for this material remains to delete it and then redirect the subjects name to one of the appropriate lists. David in DC (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get too worked up about Alansohn's lashing out; he's well known for it and mostly people learn just to ignore him. Discussion about this article's sources is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World's_Oldest_People#Persistent_restoration_of_content_not_source_to_an_RS. EEng (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@David in DC: I would suggest you do not cast doubt on the ability of an experienced editor to interpret Wikipedia policy and guidelines and try to "explain" them to me. It makes you sound intensely patronising. I'm fully aware of the meaning of notability, both in the real world and on Wikipedia, and it would seem that the majority of editors here agree with me. Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happily, we experienced editors know that majority !votes are irrelevant to our endeavor. It's the quality of our analyses that should prevail.

Also, I'm ever so appreciative if your kind suggestion. None of us has a monopoly on the wisdom market and I, for one, truly rely on the guidance of other experienced editors on matters if civility. Most especially from experienced editors with sterling reputations for civility and collaborative editing. I count my blessings every day for the willingness of my esteemed fellow editors to countenance my failings in this area and to gently help guide me towards improvement in this area. Thanks, cheers, and happy editing, my sibling. David in DC (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it is common sense that someone who was at one time the oldest living person in the world is notable, and even if there was no other reason to keep this article, then it should be kept based on the instruction in WP:Notability to use common sense. However, I think obituaries from major news organizations are sufficient coverage to show that a person is notable, and that he does in fact have significant coverage in reliable sources. The references to WP:ROUTINE mentioned above are a misapplication of the guideline, since WP:ROUTINE is a section of Wikipedia:Notability (events), and thus has no bearing on whether a person is notable. The point of WP:ROUTINE is that the death of the person is not a notable event. Newspapers routinely run obituaries for notable people, and that doesn't provide evidence that the death should be covered in a separate article. However, such coverage in a reliable source is evidence that the person is notable and should have their own article. I furthermore disagree that this article should be merged or redirected per WP:NOPAGE, as that section seems to call primarily for a subjective assessment of whether the article subject would be better covered in a larger article. In this case, I think the details in this article would not improve other articles, and instead think that we are covering the subject in the best way right now (with a little information in articles like oldest people, and some more information in a standalone article). I also disagree with WP:PERMASTUB in general, as I find stub articles useful and satisfying to read even when they can't be expanded; since it is an essay and not a guideline, it should have no bearing on the outcome of the discussion. In short, I think he passes the notability guidelines and I find none of the arguments for a redirect convincing. Calathan (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect. NOPAGE and PERMASTUB apply. No substantive encyclopedic content to justify a standalone article and this will clearly never change. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This man received not just local, but international coverage. The oldest person in the world is deserving of an article, not just an entry on a list. That's how we've treated other "oldest people", up to the last few days. Jacona (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last few months you mean. And that was after a decade of sockpuppetry and ARBCOM issues. We also treated this as not needing discretionary sanctions but they do now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was the oldest man in the world out of several billion and one of the oldest men of all time. Coverage in sources exist. Passes WP:GNG. Why is WP:NOPAGE being vehemently applied to longevity articles, but not others? Just because you don't find the information interesting doesn't mean it isn't of interest to others. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Coverage in sources exist". WP:BURDEN suggests that you provide it, not require everyone else to prove a negative. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a massive inconsistency in that the article's two sources (both WP:ROUTINE obituaries) claim he was the world's oldest man around the time of his death while the entire article goes into a circular speak about how he wasn't considered the world's oldest man at that time due to the Kamato Hongo issues. As such, we have two routine obituaries which don't show particularly notable coverage as the only sources about him (citation 3 to Table C is entirely a sourcing issue about whether or not the GRG or Guinness believed or didn't believe in the Hongo claim and isn't related to Chuganji. It seems like it's a WP:FRINGE theory that anyone believed that Hongo was the world's oldest man (making the whole GRG craziness more suspect). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont understand what you are saying here. Hongo is a female. How can she be the world oldest man?? Petervermaelen (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand if you think it is too short. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Really? the oldest person in the world and sixth oldest man ever recorded isn't notable? I beg to differ. He died over 10 years ago so sourcing will be more difficult, but not a reason to delete this page.--Uietueps (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was the World's Oldest Verified Living Man and, later, Person. That is a pretty valid reason as to why this article should be kept. There are several articles about this man:

Japanese Man, 112, World's Oldest (4 February 2002)
World's oldest man celebrates 113th birthday (23 March 2002)
Oldest man marks 114th birthday (24 March 2003)

He was also mentioned alongside Kamato Hongo as one of the oldest in the world numerous times. 930310 (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the key here is being verified as the oldest person ever in the world at a point and there are sufficient sources that verifies this. Vivexdino (talk) 05:15, 6 December 2015 (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.