Chiyo Miyako – The result was overturn to no consensus. Whilst many editors agreed that Sandstein was correct in discounting keep !votes that were not rooted in policy, the majority view is that closing the discussion as delete went too far in the other direction. The article has since been restored, merged and redirected to list of Japanese supercentenarians anyway, which is not inconsistent with either close, so in the end it is something of a moot point. – – Joe (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
The raw !voting was 16 keep; 4.5 delete; 1.5 redirect. To claim that there was a consensus to delete offends commonsense and natural justice. The close was contrary to the guidance of WP:DGFA, "Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants. ... When in doubt, don't delete."
The supposed reason for ignoring all those keep votes was that they were variations on the idea "anybody who is among the oldest persons is automatically notable". That claim was false as I and several others cited WP:BASIC, which is a standard notability guideline, and gave examples of sources providing coverage. The logic of the close was that of the straw man -- only cherry-picking one argument and ignoring all others.
The closer suggested that the keep voters go and hold another discussion to establish their position. That advice is erroneous because this discussion was already well-attended by a variety of experienced editors and so holding another discussion would be contrary to WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:NOTLAW.
Endorse close Redirect is the appropriate outcome, the keeps have no argument. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. I was the nom on this case. The closer, IMHO, quite justifiedly dismissed a (admittedly large) number of !votes that claimed notability based on the age of the subject alone, which is not based in any policy or guideline. In addition, WP:NOPAGE applied, as there was basically nothing of interest to write about, apart from the subject's birthdate/birthplace and dead date/death place. AFD is not a vote, so the numerical majority of non-policy/guideline-based !votes was justified. --Randykitty (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close - There was nothing in the article other than that she was born, became the oldest person in the world, then died. WP:NOPAGE applied as the only other content was that she enjoyed eating eel. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the close here is based on the statement that WP:BIO doesn't recognise any age-based presumption of notability. I think that's at least debatable. The subject of the article was the oldest (verified) person in the world, and WP:BIO does allow "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". I think this arguably qualifies. In any case I don't think this argument is bad enough to be discounted with a sizeable numerical majority. Hut 8.5 17:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was/is that there was/is no bio on the person. Right now she is listed under "World's oldest verified people" with her date of birth and date of death, what else would you have included? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The question of whether the subject is notable has nothing whatsoever to do with the state of the article. Hut 8.5 17:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notability becomes moot if WP:NOPAGE applies. In the present case, we have the WP:ONEVENT of her old age and nothing else but some trivia. --Randykitty (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The close was based on notability grounds. If it's just an editorial judgement about how to best present the content then it's a lot harder to ignore the fact that most people in the AfD did not agree with that position. Oh, and being the oldest person in the world is not an "event". WP:ONEVENT isn't a general catch-all about people whose notability derives from one thing. Hut 8.5 19:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reclose as keep this kind of supervote should not be tolerated. Conjure up whatever justification you want, but I'm not going to side with an admin who discards such a sizable consensus. Lepricavark (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close – Once WP:ILIKEIT arguments were discarded (super-old ≠ notable), the discussion clearly did not support the maintenance of an individual article for this particular supercentenarian. A redirect to the list would probably have been a better solution, and this is what later spontaneously happened. Wikipedia is fine, Chiyo-san is documented, and we can move on. — JFGtalk 18:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - There was nothing close to consensus here. The closer had a viewpoint and chose to overrule the community. Dismissing votes without a valid argument is one thing, but many of these made policy-based assertions, which were nevertheless dismissed because they didn't match the closer's prejudices.Jacona (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and undelete. A large variety of !votes were given during the AfD discussion. They were ignored and lumped together, as if those editors were one and not 16 individual editors. This felt like a strong-arming and hijacking of an AfD, with a total dismissal of a variety of editors citing valid reasons to keep the article per standard notability guidelines. It did not matter, however, what those presenting reasons to keep the article said. The decision had clearly been made despite valid reasons for keeping. The age of the subject was NOT the only reason given for keeping the article, and saying that does not make it so. The article met WP:Basic and WP:GNG. The way this was closed flies in the face of what AfDs are intended to do. The AfD was hijacked and closed as Delete. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. There was no article here (WP:NOPAGE) except information on her birth date, death date, age, what she liked to eat and she liked to travel. The last two are mere fan trivia of no encyclopedic value. The admin was correct in closing as delete. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close We've been here a number of times. The vast majority of the Keep votes did not reference any policy whereby being very old means someone is notable (which is unsurprising because no such policy or guideline exists). Also, a number of people here seem to be under the impression that XfD is a vote and whoever gets the most votes wins. Which, again, is false. Practically no imformation has been lost here, because the article now redirects to a page which contains all the important facts that were contained in the original article. Obviously, if sources showing more coverage of her before her death could be unearthed, that would be good, but this was not done during the AfD, so it was unsurprising it was closed as it was. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there are 20 bad keep arguments, 10 good ones and 5 delete arguments, there still isn't consensus for deletion. The bad keep arguments don't somehow negate the good ones, which seems to be where you and the closer are heading. And the delete arguments, on the whole, just argued "not automatically notable". Which while true, doesn't address the WP:N argument for keeping (which was made by more people than made any argument for deletion...) Hobit (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hobit, this is a perfect assessment of this closing. Thanks.Jacona (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. An AfD discussion is not a vote. A large quantity of !votes with no basis in policies or guidelines should not take precedence over even a single sound argument supported by a policy or a guideline. — Newslingertalk 21:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as the close failed to similarly discount arguments to WP:NOTINTERESTING made by delete !votes. It is not up to us to judge what reliable sources found worthy of note. If the Associated Press says that eating eel and sushi is notable and Newsweek found that travelling with her husband is notable, who are we to override that and say it is not. As several of the keep !votes pointed out, and were ignored, the article met the guidelines of WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. My vote which ended with "the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources" was summarily ignored. It is no surprise that my fears that significant information would be lost were fully realized. Notable information sourced from reliable sources were erased from Wikipedia only on the argument that it is not interesting.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm trying to be impartial as I participated in the discussion and supported keeping it: even if I supported deleting it, I'd personally vote overturn. While the delete voters made pretty strong points, it wasn't really a consensus in any way. Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Yeah, a lot of the keep !votes were week, but most of the delete !votes were not much better. I don't appreciate my own well-reasoned comment (which amounted to "there's a lot more usable media in Japanese covering her as the oldest person in Kanagawa than is being noted by the delete !votes") being thrown out because some others who !voted keep had weaker arguments and because something else I said happened to look kinda similar to the weaker argument that other editors made later. That said, I'm a bit concerned about Andrew's counter-policy stance, not just here but overall: is he going to open a deletion review every time the majority is overruled? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse-ish, maybe overturn and relist. I think this is a fine enough close, although I might have relisted it with some version of the close in the text, as there was/is clearly a healthy discussion ongoing. Sandstein clearly laid out their rationale, and while some of the arguments made in that close are a little close to opining as a participant, I think it's reasonable to find a delete outcome in the discussion below it. Not for nothing, but if I had to choose, I'd probably have !voted to keep, for essentially the same, weak reasons as those provided in the AfD. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 00:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with pretty much all of the above, and I think Andrew is essentially gaming the system in order to undermine WP:NOTDEMOCRACY in a case where it didn't go his way (which hardly ever happens at AFD). Notifying everyone who already !voted in the AFD gives everyone, the majority of whom didn't want the page deleted, an opportunity to modify their previous comments post-close in order to retroactively pretend like the close was baseless. The problem here is I agree with Andrew on whether the article in question should be redirected/deleted in this case, and I think that there were enough reasonable "keep" arguments to rule out the NOTDEMOCRACY/OSE rationale for deleting. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Being the oldest verified person in the world is a powerful claim of notabilty which has not been refuted. There is a very big difference between being just another supercentennarian and being the world's oldest verified person. Incorrect statements about the article content are being made in this very discussion, which is quite sad. In addition to birth and death places and dates, the article had biographical information including that she did not smoke, her dietary preferences, her long time avocation of calligraphy, her marriage, her husband's career, and their travels together. This biographical prose has been lost (temporarily I hope) due to this deletion. The article was in full compliance with our core content policies, and as Hijiri 88 points out, there are Japanese language sources available for possible expansion. The closer failed to take into account my criticism of "delete" !votes who cited "policies" that are actually guidelines (I got accused of wikilawyering for observing that fact) and for using judgmental language such as "hobbyists", "fancruft" and "silly permastub". The failure of the closer to discount this type of rhetoric by the advocates of deletion is really quite troubling. The notion that topics like this must comply with subject specific notability guidelines is also troubling. There are countless notable topics that are not covered by such guidelines and we continue to write acceptable articles about topics completely outside subject specific guidelines, and that is entirely appropriate. Cullen328Let's discuss it 01:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There is no established policy I can find saying one is automatically notable for being the oldest person in the world which the vast majority of keep votes were based on and the closer correctly identified. It's not clear from the AfD the article satisfies WP:GNG, either, as sources don't really get discussed - so much of the discussion was about the presumption of notability instead of sourcing. SportingFlyertalk 03:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, no such policy exists and those arguing it should be that way are, at best, making an IAR argument. That said, keep !voters claimed that the sources met WP:N and I don't think anyone disputed that. Hobit (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Most people who vote 'close' here seem to have an apparent incapability or unwillingness to perform proper research, or are too focused on sources in the English language. If one took the trouble to delve into Japanese material, one would actually find this book[1] (called "Stories of One-Hundred-Year-Olds"), which included an entire chapter about her when she was 102. Undoubtedly, more information about Mrs Miyako's life is available in this book. In addition, there are sources dating back to 2012, such as this one[2], that already referred to Mrs Miyako, showing that there is definitely more material available. Thus, I think it is saddening to see that so many contributors here solely focus on sources in the English language and seem to think that the world ends there. Fortunately, much more is available on the web. Fiskje88 (talk) 08:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. She was apparently "locally famous" -- in the largest city in Japan -- for a lot longer, so the AFD nominator's reasoning, that she was "only" the oldest person on earth for a few months, was void from the start. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One of the arguments of the people who wish to delete this article is that there was not much coverage in the media. I am only pointing out that there are more sources that have not been delved into yet. Moreover, what in the sources that I have provided states that she was only "locally famous"? As far as I am aware, a book which is published is usually available in a larger part of the world than only "the largest city in Japan" (nice to see that you know your geography regarding Yokohama). Fiskje88 (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. Being "locally famous" can be enough to merit a Wikipedia article if the sources are there. She is locally famous in one of the largest urban centers in Japan. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my apologies. I read a lot of sarcasm into it. :) Fiskje88 (talk) 08:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn She was the WOP, the 8th verified oldest person ever, the 2nd verified oldest Japanese person ever, the last remaining verified person to be born in 1902 and one of only nine verified people to have reached the age of 117. She wasn't just another supercentenarian. RightGot (talk) 12:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder – Deletion review is not the place to re-litigate the dispute. Please focus your comments on checking whether the closer did a proper evaluation of arguments presented in the discussion. — JFGtalk 14:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda stepping on my own earlier point there. But it's not relitigating to point out that that the original AFD included good keep arguments that the closer dismissed because some of what they (we) said resembles a weaker argument others made later. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I was not addressing your well-reasoned comments pointing out sources for her notability in Japan, rather people who just come here to say "This can't be right: the world's oldest person is automatically notable." — JFGtalk 09:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. Outside of the initial flurry of keep comments that weren't based well in policy, I don't see a clear consensus. StrikerforceTalk 15:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
overturn to keep There is a BLP1E argument for deletion that can be made here and would be reasonable. But the closer appeared to ignore the arguments that said that WP:N was met and instead focused on a single, bogus IMO, argument about age being some form of automatic notability. Even if we entirely throw out those "automatic notability" arguments (but keeping in mind that some who made the claim that 'oldest' is enough, went on to note that WP:N is met) there is a strong still a enough argument for keeping (sources, meeting WP:N) that wasn't refuted. I could certainly have accepted a NC outcome based on BLP1E arguments not being addressed by the keep voters. But given the numbers and strength of argument (deletes mostly didn't touch BLP1E), this should be a keep even though NC would be within discretion IMO. Hobit (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC) updated for clarity Hobit (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. I don't think discounting the keep arguments to the level done was justified. Stifle (talk) 07:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close--Per Blackkite.∯WBGconverse 11:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reclose as Keep It was ridiculous to close this AFD as delete with votes of 16 keep; 4.5 delete; 1.5 redirect and the article met WP:BASIC. Drunk in Paris (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC Just as we make by consensus the policy and the guidelines, we make the exceptions. AfD as always been a place where it is possible to make exceptions, and the only test of whether an exception should be made is the consensus of those considering the issue. (this does not mean I am necessarily in favor of keeping the article--I do not particualrly care about the topci one way or another). DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing Admin I don't believe the nom or any canvassing has been going on, but bringing attention that this deletion review was the subject of off-Wiki canvassing on the 110 Club where a "Ryoung122" and a "Waenceslaus" (both topic banned from longevity) were encouraging users to take the AFD to deletion review. The link is ( https://the110club.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=20583&p=40052472&hilit=wikipedia#p40052472 ) but if the posts cannot be accessed or viewed, then screenshots can be provided upon request. CommanderLinx (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see the posts have since been moved to the private section so the screenshots are here ( one, two and three ). As correctly pointed out below, this topic area has a huge and long history of off-Wiki canvassing. I've also noticed that the contents of the article have since been merged entirely to List of Japanese supercentenarians#Chiyo Miyako which I believe goes against the AFD result of delete. CommanderLinx (talk) 08:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just by way of context, there was an arbitration case about the topic of very old people, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity, and I understand it revealed that there are organized groups of people out there promoting their own theories about longevity and using Wikipedia to do so, in part by attempting to include as much longevity-related information as possible. This may be why the AfD was so well-attended and had an unusually high number of problematic opinions. Similar circumstances may apply to this also very well-attended DRV. Sandstein 07:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein, could you please clarify what you mean with "own theories about longevity"? Thank you. :) Fiskje88 (talk) 08:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Though I'm not Sandstein, I was one of the people involved in that at the time. The practice of the GRG acolytes at the time, then as now, was to treat this as a sort of contest to stave off the reaper the longest, and accordingly descriptions of them used all sorts of terminology most familiar to sports and sporting events (examples upon request). Except that professional athletes at the top levels actually organize events and routinely receive regular coverage, whereas people who just happen to have a pulse longer than most are not competing against each other and accordingly do not receive the same consistent coverage. The longevity people refused, and still do refuse, to accept that the two situations are incongruous. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, Blade of NL. Although I can see that you and I differ in opinion, I doubt your explanation covers the "own theories of longevity". Mainstream media, particularly in the last couple of years, do seem to have picked up on the issue and also see the scientific value of it: [1], [2], and [3] are only a small number of examples that show this. In other words, although I agree with you that longevity is not comparable to sporting events, I disagree that these supercentenarians and the accompanying field of research are not worthy of Wikipedia coverage when the media do increasingly report on the topic. Fiskje88 (talk) 08:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing Admin As this same group is notifying admins of possible canvassing, please note my reponse to this issue here[4]. Fiskje88 (talk) 08:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn because a close of "delete" was unreasonable. The nomination and some "delete" !voters clearly recognised "redirect" as acceptable and this should have prevailed over deletion. If the closer thought "keep" was an unacceptable result (it wasn't as the above shows), a close of "merge" was within discretion even though no one recommended merging. It is foolish to have battles over notability when merging or redirection is feasible – experienced editors should know better than to nominate at AFD such articles on topics they consider non-notable. I commend the present situation at List of Japanese supercentenarians and List of the verified oldest people but the AfD can claim no credit for this. Thincat (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close subsequent developments aside, which are fine by me, there was no problem with the stated rationale. Many of the comments here reflect the same mentality of the keep votes, and fail to explain why having a 3 digit age with the first two digits as "11" inherently generates notability. And to people getting worried about the term "fancruft", it's not a comment about the article subject; it's to do with the hordes of fanboys who have for more than a decade (and which I've personally worked against for almost 8 years) engaged in completely unabashed, unrelenting, belligerent, and self-aggrandizing POV pushing. The history is laid out in links above, and this is exactly the sort of situation they seize upon to try to force reams upon reams upon reams upon reams of beyond useless information about non-notable oldsters into Wikipedia (my personal favorite, from a while ago but very demonstrative, is this). Incidentally, though it is beyond the scope of this DRV, I do not find any of the new source material above persuasive. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be "belligerent" myself here, but how does this comment, which seems to demonstrate - note the verb 'seem'! - a certain personal mission or endeavour to eradicate material that the editor in question does not deem 'Wikipedia-worthy', confirm a WP:NPOV? To counter the personal favourite, for instance, science does research longevity in twins: here are [1], [2], and [3] as examples, for instance. Now, I am not saying that Wikipedia should cover every supercentenarian or every minute statistic in the field that exists (much like Wikipedia fortunately does not cover every tennis player outside the top 100 or without any significant achievements such as [4], [5], or [6]), but the balance does seem to be off when editors' votes who have "personally worked against [this topic] for almost 8 years" are taken into account. I fear that Wikipedia's coverage of longevity no longer does justice to the coverage the field receives outside of this encyclopedia. Fiskje88 (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's lots of research on lots of twins. There's also lots of research on, say, schizophrenics. That doesn't mean, however, that we should cover every individual twin pair or every individual schizophrenic. Such research is almost always (barring a rare case study) carried out on groups of subjects, in order to get the statistical power needed and does not add any notability to the subjects of those studies. --Randykitty (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removing unencyclopedic information is core to NPOV, and it's always going to be a judgment call as to what is and isn't encyclopedic. My goal has never been just to eliminate information, there are plenty of instances I helped keep/merge an article. The problem is that there are people (not yourself, as is clear from your comment) who actually argue that being a supercentenarian confers automatic notability, regardless of whether actual reliable sources wrote anything about someone, and the result was a massivewalled garden that has needed an immense amount of paring back. The comments in the AfD reflected the aforementioned mentality, hence my concurrence about not giving them much weight in the close. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn While AfD is not a vote, the sheer volume of keep to delete votes should ensure a no consensus. Being one of the oldest people ever is generally fine for an article, and there are sources there. The fact that there is a Japanese book partially about her is the clincher. ~EDDY(talk/contribs)~ 18:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn this ridiculous supervote. Nihlus 18:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse not-notable, keep votes make no sense. Only notable for 1 event. » Shadowowl | talk 11:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep or no consensus - Closers should neutrally implement community consensus, and that was not done in this case. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep or no consensus. Let me note a few things by way of that opinion. The first is that WP:OSE is somewhat self-contradictory essay, but it does make at least one valid procedural point, which is that comparisons of precedent can be very useful when trying to decide matters somewhat "on the line" such as whether or not high schools are inherently notable, but junior high and grade schools are not. We see that in this discussion: in the case of oldest persons above, I've seen many references to sports figures as being the closest precedent, but they aren't. Biomedically the closest would be list of tallest people, list of heaviest people, list of shortest people, and so on. I'm referring to the “list articles” only by way of compactness here: my point is that they are not ONLY list articles, but consist of at least 50% people whose names show as linked, because they have a full BIO (not a BLP, since they are dead—we’ll get to that). There are (for example) some 60 full BIOS of tallest MEN, and I haven’t even gotten to women, or small or obese people. I have looked at BIOs of tallest men, and most of them are notable only for being tall, or media/fame consequences related to being tall. There are articles on people just because they were at one time the tallest ever, but just the tallest person at one time for their country, like one guy from Puerto Rico. I hope you see the point. The yellow-boxed people, some of who have full bios, haven’t even been authenticated, so on some cases we have a full bio on a person REPUTED to be the tallest person in his country, but nobody ever officially measured him (!)
Okay, I can hear the shouts of WP:OSE, but as noted, OSE is a double-edged (and very dull) sword. It is dull because it’s not even a pillar, policy or guideline-- just a mere guidance essay. More powerful to me is CONSENSUS of very many editors who know the pillars: we have records of very many (I estimate several hundred) BIO articles on short, tall, and obese people at the edge of the human scale for these things, which were kept and not deleted, as meeting the important standards of WP:N under WP:NPOV with WP:RS. If that isn’t a pretty clear record of CONSENSUS in these matters, what is?
Why do we have the usual suspect group of deletionists for age-related articles, and none of these people are going after height and weight record articles? They seem to have an agenda related to aging, and it’s not to make WP better over all, or else we’d see them everywhere, deleting every article in the above lists. They seem to be editors with a bias against a particular topic. Beware. I will freely admit my own bias as being interested in the habits and condition of really old people (it’s my profession, after all), but I’m also interested in the habits and conditions of really tall people, and would vote against deleting one of these BIOs if anybody tried to. Can you get over 8 feet tall without having a pituitary tumor, for example? Medically I think it’s interesting, and would not show in a LIST article. The arguments for deletion because something is NOT interesting to given a group of people, are usually poorer.
And now, I want to remind before I quit, of a separate issue, which is BLPs of living “oldest people” (not the case of the woman under discussion here). The standards for BLP are necessarily tighter than for BIOs of dead people. I’ve seen some mention of BLP1E issues, but those only apply to LIVING people, not dead ones. For example, WP has a full BLP for a living person because he has the largest penis anybody acquainted with him has ever seen, even though it hasn’t been measured: Jonah Falcon. He keeps his BLP on this one issue because he’s an attention-seeker who has basically made a living from it. If he in all matters had tried to avoid the limelight, we would have a good WP:BLP1E argument for deletion, even if he was very notable for this (i.e., lots of RS discussion from his friends and former lovers). BLP1E is trumped by public profile and attention seekers: see Low Profile Individual WP:LPI.
Okay, this applies to living people with huge ages, too, not just living men with huge schlongs. I can certainly see a case for keeping a BLP of an oldest person who gives interviews, accepts awards, and enjoys the limelight, as Jeanne Calment did. But for living ones who shun the press, I think that’s a very good argument for deletion until they are “safely dead” for a seemly length of time, and then I think they deserve a BIO (not BLP), IF there is some NPOV and RS material about them (for example, again, Calment). Which is also the case now with this deceased Japanese woman. It is no longer a BLP1E issue, because not a BLP issue at all, since no LP (living person). SBHarris 08:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Just because you disagree with the keep votes is not a reason for a supervote when consensus is so clear. Smartyllama (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually per WP:CON, the phrase "quality of arguments" or the like is sprinkled throughout. This is why a keep vote explaining how much you like the article is not nearly as noticed as one that explains why policy or guideline x applies for deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In my view, opinions that focus on how this is an outrageous miscarriage of justice that this is now at DRV should be discarded. It disheartens me to see some here not assuming good faith when it came to the original nomination. Please focus on why the closer is in the wrong here from a guideline/policy point of view. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Such jeremiads are standard fare for longevity related material, and only serve to muddy the water. It is very effective at poisoning discussions such as this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, WP is even exegesis to its own Jeremiads, as in WP:NOT. Oh, we're working on the sum total of human knowledge to make it available to everybody, are we Mr. Wales? Except what valuable fancruft and game stuff that has gone to Wikia, and all that stuff on WP:NOT? And WP is legalistic talmudic comment on our own Torah, too. Complete with excommunication for heretics. Spinoza would be vastly amused by Wikipedia. SBHarris 21:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to non-consensus, and discuss further It appears to me that the people working on this topic do not have a consensus for what should be the criteria for an article on WP; the results at any give AfD will reflect the people who happen to appear there. The acceptability of the references can be argued either way, and as someone who has no particular interest in this area, I think that there needs to be a discussion not limited to the usual editors. Whether we want to make a strict or flexible interpretation of the general rules on sourcing for this area needs to be settled,and until it is, I don't se the point of pretending there's a consensus. When there is no consensus, a closer should say so, not perform their own evaluation fo the arguments. (I'll mention that if I were forced to give an opinion for whether the rules should be flexible or strict here, I would say that they should be strict, but that's just my opinion. DGG ( talk ) 22:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Such a discussion can still/should happen even if this is deleted. The sources just weren't there in depth on this person, I struggled to find sourcing (in both English and Japanese) on a bio even when Chiyo was the 2nd oldest living person. Are articles about people meant to be placeholders, or biographies? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what a waste of time. I recuse from comment on the close; I attempted to SNOW keep this to avoid this excessive debate. Perhaps an RFC is necessary, as there doesn't seem to be any agreement as to whether the extant sources can be considered to meet the GNG. I also believe the Longevity Discretionary Sanctions are applicable here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, the discretionary sanctions in that case were rescinded in 2014. The basic finding was to ban one editor for a year, and topic-ban Ryoung122 forever. I'm sure ArbCom would topic-ban Albert Einstein from relativity articles if his ghost came onto Wikipedia and edit-warred. But as for the rest of the epidemiological and procedural questions in longevity topics that are all discussed above in relation to this article, ArbCom said they were all outside its perview. It did say "membership in or affiliation with the Gerontology Research Group, or any other group named in the evidence to this case, does not in and of itself constitute a substantive conflict of interest with regard to the editing of articles on longevity topics." Two cheers. But then, after topic-banning one of the world's main experts on human longevity authentication, the ArbCom generously opined that WikiProject World's Oldest People is urged to seek experienced Wikipedia editors who will act as mentors to the project and assist members in improving their editing and their understanding of Wikipedia policies and community norms." As if anybody was going to step in front of that bullet in 2011 with the discretionary sanctions still in place and Ryoung122 gone forever. In some ways that led to where we are. ArbCom wasn't going to say what was WP:NPOV and WP:RS in World's Oldest People, but they were sure that Ryoung wasn't going to be heard any more. Rather, people more civil were to come to consensus about the length of the emperor's nose, when none of them had seen the emperor. Wikipedia in a nutshell. It operates on reliable sources, and it decides these by reliable sources on reliable sources, and those on reliable sources on reliable sources on reliable sources, and so on, all the way down. At the bottom of this endless recursion are people who actually have no clue about it, but have come to a consensus.SBHarris 09:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Sarah Jeong – Void NAC. No comment either way on the AfD, but clearly a WP:BADNAC. I'm going to back out the close and relist. – -- RoySmith(talk) 13:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Discussion was inappropriately closed as "speedy keep" by an involved non-admin (Wumbolo) after 53 minutes. (See Talk:Sarah Jeong for involvement.) The rationale for the close was that "this is a BS nomination" without addressing the nominator's original WP:BLP1E argument. A review of the contribution history for the Sarah Jeong article shows almost 7 months of inactivity before August 2. The latest revision before Jeong's recent Twitter incident was on January 9, and cites mostly passing mentions and non-independent sources as references. The discussion should have been allowed to run for the full 7 days. — Newslingertalk 13:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I stand by my close. Nomination falls under WP:SKCRIT#2b, especially since the nominator was blocked just hours after the nomination, for edit warring on a related article and edit warring on the XfD. wumbolo^^^ 13:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is still the best practice, in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved, to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards.
This was a very straightforward case. wumbolo^^^ 13:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
If you have new sources to present, please list them here. But, also understand that I can't make any promises the AfD result will be changed. Please also read WP:DRVPURPOSE, and WP:DRV#Instructions which requires that you discuss this with the closing admin before opening a case here. -- RoySmith(talk) 14:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the closing admin, and I pointed them here. There are a few new sources on my talk page, but I'm not sure if they're reliable or not. ansh666 17:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Zambia Daily Mail, Zambian Eye, Tumfweko, Luskatimes are reliable sources in Zambia and they have been used by most if not all Zambian articles to mention a few. See these articles
1. Chef 187
2. T Low
3. Macky 2
4. Kan 2
5. Mampi
6. B Flow
7. Cleo Ice Queen
8. Petersen Zagaze
9. Ruff Kid
Another thing is despite user Chabota Kanguya had a conflict of interest hence voting the page to be deleted despite having notable reference, see the pages he created and you shall find that he actually use the same paper. Otherwise the decision to delete the page was rushed hence there was no consensus. See these www.daily-mail.co.zm/mic-diggy-signs-cd-run written by one of the paid and senior editors of the paper. See also the new source https://zambianeye.com/mic-diggy-apologies-to-slap-d-on-znbc-radio-4s-hip-hop-eardrum/ written by the papers news desk. Also note that the artist
Has had a single (s) on the country's national music chart and also he Has performed music for a work of media that is notable in Zambia ZNBC Born n Bred award's Cypher 2014 - 2015 (more like BET awards cyphers in the US) which aired on national television [7] this reference is from youtube not to contribute on notability but to pin point factsVicmullar (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse I've spent a lot of time on this AfD reading carefully all of the arguments presented for keep and carefully examining the sources provided, even when I did not directly respond. Let me start by saying judging notability with a Zambian subject presents challenges and I am more cautious here than I would be in a similar situation with a US or UK article subject. It's always seemed to me that WP:MUSICBIO criteria 11 Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. is the strongest claim to notability. [1] does seem to provide some sourcing for such a claim (and also MUSICBIO criteria 2, though there's no currently accepted chart for Zambia). I've had a devil of a time trying to establish whether Zambian Eye is RS. My efforts to date say it's not; if I were convinced otherwise (and I'm open to being convinced) I would likely !vote to overturn. This is the only evidence provided by Vicmullar above that makes me reconsider (rest is either WP:OTHERSTUFF, not WP:RS, or not significant enough to help establish WP:GNG). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also think this is an excellent potential example where WP:MUSICBIO is a useful SNG shortcut for GNG given that if we can establish one of its criteria it can, reasonably, absolve us of the difficulties I noted above about dealing with the Zambian subject matter. Felt I should note this given that I spoke against sources helping towards WP:GNGBest, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. These are the same sort of low level non-RS sources that were rejected in the AFD. Much like the AFD, it seems no one in favor of keeping actually understands how Wikipedia defines a reliable source, it’s just WP:OSE type stuff. The AFD ran for multiple weeks with no policy-based keep rationales. If it wasn’t kept there, it shouldn’t be kept now, as this isn’t just another AFD. This should be closed out. Sergecross73msg me 22:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close: the arguments above are not new, they are the same ones that have been repeated more than once (and dismissed) on the original AfD. No proof shown of a single on the country's national music chart, and I don't believe an official national chart actually exists. The only new "source" is a YouTube video which features Mic Diggy among a group of rappers in a pre-recorded video, and it's not clear how it links to the award ceremony suggested by Vicmullar. As pointed out on the original AfD, the Tumfweko article is a carbon copy of an article on another website, suggesting it's just a news harvesting website. The Zambian Eye doesn't pass Wikipedia's definition of an RS – it's hosted on a Wordpress blog site (not a good sign), and has no named authors or editorial control. The Lusaka Times is not an RS – it explicitly states on its website that "our day to day news content comes from known Zambian sources like Zambia Daily-Mail, Times of Zambia, ZNBC and ZANIS" and that it "provides a platform for any Zambian who want their article published"... in other words, it copies from other sources, and allows anybody to write whatever they want on the website. So the Daily Mail is the only reliable source, and all it tells us is that he released three non-notable singles and signed a distribution deal for his own self-released records – there is no non-trivial content from reliable sources. I would also add that no evidence has been provided for the accusation that Chabota Kanguya "had a conflict of interest", and I can't see any COI. Richard3120 (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close I'm still not convinced that the subject meets requirements for notability, per issues raised by Richard. StrikerforceTalk 15:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse A mess of an AfD, unfortunately. It's probably harder for someone to show musical notability in Zambia than it is in other places using our methods due to source reasons. That being said, I don't even see a benefit of a doubt here: the closer acted appropriately. SportingFlyertalk 05:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation If you were to go on facebook and search for his real name and add wikipedia, you will find a post of B Flow thanking him for the wikipedia article and he actually tagged him. Does that mean something to you ? More followers for examples. Or maybe i just i mislead everything, i stand to be corrected, he was also the first person to nominate the Mic Diggy article for deletion, Kindly see the articles written by him and see the sources he used. Ps, I don't see anywhere on wikipedia stating that a website hosted by wordpress is automatically not a RS, the article on Mic Diggy was written by the newsdesk(the department of a newspaper or a broadcasting organization that is responsible for collecting news and preparing it for publication or broadcast) of Zambian Eye, and it covers a lot of things that points out the artist is notable as at 2018. Also note that Some news organizations do not publish their editorial policies but that does not mean its not reliable. Do some research on born n bred awards zambia, and their cyphers in which Mic Diggy took part as rookie. Vicmullar (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
People already know you want recreation. You're the article creator, and the person who started the DRV.
Whatever you're talking about with that Facebook example has no bearing here.
If you read and understand WP:USERG, you'll understand why a Wordpress is generally not a usuable source. Anyone can make one and write whatever they want without any editorial oversight. That goes against WP:RS.
You keep going about this wrong, and that's why we keep having a consensus to delete: You keep demanding people prove that your sources are unreliable. That's backwards. As long as the article is up for deletion, you need to be proving how the sources are reliable. And you haven't. You've given every backwards reasons why its potentially not unreliable (ie "well just because they don't have editorial policy posted doesn't mean they don't have one") without providing any valid reason on why they are reliable. What reason is there to believe that they have editorial policy without it being posted? What reason is there to believe they are professional writers, with credentials. All you do is try to come up with various loopholes.
People have done research. And they've come to the conclusion that the sourcing isn't good enough to meet the WP:GNG. And you haven't given a valid counterargument, you've just thrown a bunch of "What about this?" scenarios that don't help this discussion. Sergecross73msg me 14:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This shouldn't even be a "second AfD discussion" – it ought to be a review of whether the closer made the correct decision when closing the AfD. Nobody has yet agreed with the DRV proposer, and no further reliable sources have been provided, which suggests to me that the original decision was correct. Richard3120 (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is correct. DRV isn't a second AFD, it's a review to make sure the right close was made at the AFD. There was no other valid decision an uninvolved admin could have made based on the discussion that had taken place at the original AFD. Sergecross73msg me 16:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
