Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sakari Momoi

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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sakari Momoi[edit]

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

Longevity is not a reason for inclusion here. Wikipedia is not a directory of longest living people Fiddle Faddle 19:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this one. Unlike the other supercentenarians nominated at the same time, this individual was, for a time, the world's oldest living man. That's a far more credible claim to notability than (from some of the other nominated articles) the oldest living person in California, the oldest Irish-born person, or even the oldest Jewish person. The latter are all, at least arguably, trivial intersections. But there is a unique oldest living man at any given time and, presuming there is third-party coverage sufficient to provide sourcing, those record-holders likely do have an inherent claim to notability. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Biographical articles on Wikipedia only survive on the basis of "person is notable or non-notable". And record holder of "world's oldest living man" is notable. --Human3015^TALK 21:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think mass-proposing deletions with the same justification ("Longevity is not a reason for inclusion here.") is somewhat nonconstructive, and calls for a single centralised discussion somewhere. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misao Okawa‎ Imaginatorium (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Obviously. Nominator has proposed a number of articles be deleted ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]), including well sourced articles that clearly pass WP:GNG, for no reason other than "I just don't like it". -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC) — Ollie231213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I agree with Ollie, they have at this point mass spammed the AfD with nominations of every oldest person they can find. --2602:306:8381:7390:C091:2760:198B:C94 (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Editor has been indefinitely blocked as a block evading sockpuppet. EEng (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per this. This editor nominated a list articles of oldest living humans and cited WP:NOTDIR. This person is clearly notable per my diff statement and is not eligible for deletion per AFD. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed back to Keep. See this edit with my explanation. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Consistently cited in various sources, and is certainly notable as the world's oldest man. Bodgey5 (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Squeamish Ossifrage. This particular article is well sourced and the person is clearly notable. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Non-policy based deletion nomination. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he was the oldest living man in the world. Dman41689 (talk) 06:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo (2nd nomination), even in 2012 being the oldest woman in Asia wasn't sufficient for notability to create a separate article (and the oldest in the world wasn't sufficient in 2015). The problem is the numerous WP:SPAs who have voraciously fought on these articles for a decade. Plus these articles (at least the English ones I can read) are obituaries and thus what was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Taggart (2nd nomination) as WP:ROUTINE coverage as opposed to actual sources that would fall under WP:N. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky81682, the Japanese sources numbered 2 and 3 are dead links, but their titles are about him becoming the oldest man in Japan. Then as you can see from the English titles, sources 4 and 5 are about him becoming the world's oldest man. So they are not all obituaries. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no specific policy cited to justify deletion. Notability and significance established per Squeamish Ossifrage's rationale. clpo13_(talk) 20:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being the oldest anything does not, in and of itself confer automatic notability, but it does appear in this case that the subject of the article has met the coverage requirements of WP:N. Canadian Paul 22:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I realized that I gave my vote in haste, and mostly because of the fact that the nominator tagged many "long living" humans citing WP:NOTDIR. Taking into account the notability claimed in the article, as well as Wikipedia's policies, I believe that this person does pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC (perhaps WP:ANYBIO if the person won an award?), but this article also falls under WP:1E, in that this person (had she died at an average age) would have otherwise not been notable at all. All of the sources provided in the article, as well as other sources I found, only mention this person's death. As pointed out by Ricky81682, AfD's in the past have come to a consensus to delete articles of people just like this one. Per WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, this person is notable. But, WP:1E is meant to be a check against people who pass the "notable test". Instead of each long-living person having their own article, they could instead be mentioned in an article regarding long-living persons. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Moved to Keep.'[reply]
Keep I notice it was mentioned here that Mr. Momoi was mainly reported on when he died, yet I beg to differ; not only did his "ascension to the throne" gain him media attention (such as [7], [8], [9], and [10] to mention just a few), he was also reported on in his home country/in Asia during his life: [11], and [12] for a start. Being unable to read/understand another language does not alter the fact that this man was regularly reported on in the last years before his death. Fiskje88 (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC) — Fiskje88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy Keep Strange discussion. I think this discussion should be immediately closed as Keep.--Inception2010 (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC) — Inception2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep World record such as fastest...., loudest..., most number of times..., etc. might be trivial and generally not notable. But this is a case of unique biological/medical condition. It is not something that you perform but a natural phenomenon. The subject will be remembered in medical history. Chhandama (talk) 07:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - longstanding tradition exists that the "oldest man in X large country" is kept. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 21 October 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.