Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niwa Kawamoto

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 Merge / redirect to Oldest validated person by year of birth, non prejudicial closure subject to finding reliable sources the article can be recreated. Gnan garra 11:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Niwa Kawamoto[edit]

Does not seem to pass WP:N. Of the Ghits, none contain any substantial coverage of or information on the subject of the article. Thus it has little potential for expansion and contains no information aside from what is present in the various supercentenarian lists. My basic problem with this article is that there is little, if any, information out there that could be added to this article aside from what is already present on these lists. For those worried about English-language bias, I note that the Japanese Wikipedia entry is completely unreferenced as well. For those worried that the Google test is not sufficient for someone who died in 1976, I performed searches at both the University of Texas Libraries Catalog (which covers several voluminous libraries) and jstor.org (which covers journal articles back to the 1800s) with no results. Basically, the same argument I made with Mito Umeta. Cheers, CP 01:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable but needs much better sourcing. JJL (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Errr... the entire point of this nomination is that research indicates that it cannot be better sourced. Cheers, CP 04:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I did read that and didn't mean to be dismissive; I appreciate that you did a thorough search. From your description and the article it sounded to me as though the basic fact that she was the oldest for a year was accurate. I believe that she satisfies WP:N given the length of time she held the 'title' and who succeeded her but agree that WP:RS is missing. JJL (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply Oh no, I don't question the basic fact - indeed there are many Ghits for the basic fact - but there's no reason why this needs its own article if it's never going to be anything more than what it is now (and quite frankly, the unreferenced, original researchish material should be removed no matter what happens). There's no verifiable information here that couldn't be included on Oldest validated person by year of birth or Oldest people. Precedent has been that without sources covering the individual, it belongs on a list. Cheers, CP 00:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per above. Some information, while little, is present in the article that is not in the lists. I don't want that to be deleted. December 21, 2012 (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply All the information that is present and not on the list is unreferenced and smells suspiciously like original research. I kept it in the article because I don't think it's fair to delete information and then nominate, but I will tag it as such now. Cheers, CP 00:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This user has a suspiciously short contribution history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossami (talk • contribs)
  - What is so "suspiciously short" about my edit history? I'm new. Is that a problem? December 21, 2012 (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wouldn't worry about it. It's likely just a "drive-by" note, as Rossami hasn't participated at all in the actual discussion. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia is plagued by users who attempt to bias its decision-making processes through sockpuppetry and other abusive practices. This is especially problematic in deletion discussions. While there is no explicit suffrage standard for participation in deletion debates, it has become common practice to mark the comments of new users for special review by the closing admin. Verifiable facts, hard evidence and clear reasoning that aligns with Wikipedia policy will always be considered by the closer of the discussion. The mere opinions of new users, however, are often discounted in the final decision.
      By the way, my apologies for the comments that disappeared as a result of my prior edit. I have no idea how that happened. I would have sworn that everything was still there when I previewed the edit. Thanks to Nihonjoe for restoring them. Rossami (talk) 05:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I wouldn't call it plagued, though it does happen on occasion (usually in very controversial or popular AfD discussions). Given that this is one user who happens to be new, I sincerely doubt there's any of that going on here. I strongly encourage the closing admin to not be biased by the fact this user is new. I can see no reason for that being a reason to discount his/her opinion. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Not that it makes a difference to me, but just so that everyone knows, that user currently has case open at suspected sock puppets. Cheers, CP 23:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Oldest validated person by year of birth. If there is no other information that would bring this beyond a stub, there's no point in having a separate article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above. While the information appears to be factual, it does not appear to be notable.--Fabrictramp (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being old is not a reason to have an article. Tavix (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a claim that has never been made. Being the oldest person on Earth is notable, though. It is very likely that many articles were written about this person, but as Japan has lagged behind somewhat (and still does in many cases) with getting newspapers and magazines online so they are searchable, it is much more difficult to find these older articles. Even now, most smaller newspapers aren't online, or are barely online (along the lines of "Hi, this is our website.") The only source for these older newspapers is likely libraries in Japan using either copies of the actual newspapers or microfilm/fiche copies of them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:43, 29 December 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.