Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese supercentenarians


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

List of Japanese supercentenarians

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is completely redundant and has been repeatedly restored against various policies. It needs to be Deleted, then a redirect created on the title. The following reasons apply:

1. It is completely redundant (except for recent updates)  to List of supercentenarians from Asia which currently only covers Japanese people, though it could cover the other 97% of Asians if anyone sources some super old people outside Japan.

2. The editors that restored repeatedly insert a version that is a month out of date.

3. The implemented merger Was the result of an AfD discussion. Further is was also discussed by me on the talk page of the article over a month ago. Anyone watching the article could and should have commented, but did not. Accusations in edit summaries and elsewhere that I forced this through are false. As of the post, no other editor has bothered to discuss their reasons for keeping on talk, just blindly reverted with threats and warnings. I have pointed to the talk page in edit summaries and on Lugnuts talk page.

4. The entire contents of the lists are a copyright violation of the sole source - several GRG tables, exactly like this page that was recently deleted confirmed at DRV. The collection, verification and organization of this information is creative and Wikipedia is very strict about copyright violations. This is also true of the exact same info on the List of supercentenarians from Asia page, but we can deal with that separately.

5. Multiple pages carrying the same information has been a maintenance challenge. The Asia page was not being updated properly before the merger, being wildly different then the Japan page it should have mirrored. That problem has been corrected with the merger.

6. Longevity is an area under Discretionary Sanctions with a long history of tenacious editing by Single Purpose Accounts, off wiki coordination, meat puppets, etc. ArbComm has given a clear mandate to clean up and needless duplication of tables is part of that effort. Legacypac (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. No valid reasons advanced for deletion. Using the deletion process in order to gain advantage in a content dispute is disruptive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no content dispute, all the content is at the Asia page. This editor as advanced no rational to keep. Legacypac (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't understand what "content dispute" means, do you? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * By that logic every AfD is a content dispute. Legacypac (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. If the goal is to merge, that doesn't require WP:AFD. If the the list is indeed a copyvio (and it looks like it is), AFD is still the wrong place. See WP:DCV. Pburka (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I already merged after an AfD and an attempt at discussion, but it's been unmerged with no discussion. Two editors insist this come to AfD so here we are. Thanks for the DCV suggestion, which I'll look into as well. Legacypac (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

1. An article does not become redundant if the list of Asia supercentenarians is almost a duplicate. That article needs to be updated to capture cases from other Asian nations. As more Asian cases outside Japan are verified, the more the two lists will begin to differ.
 * Speedy keep

2. The editors are reversing a change which was forced upon Wikipedia. Better an out of date article than no article

3. Although it was discussed nobody agreed with the proposal. Furthermore the request to delete the article of Japanese supercentenarians was not discussed in the article itself but in another article. This is not the correct method and is also dishonest.

4. Wikipedia articles require reliable references to support their articles. How can one link to a reliable source without infringing copyright? This is clearly an area of contradicting issues

5. What is the definition of being properly updated? There are numerous articles on Wikipedia which have similar issues. Does that mean thousands of articles should be deleted? I say not. The beauty of Wikipedia is it is a collective effort of the community to present the information and to keep updating it as time, effort and release of new information allows it.

6. See point 1 above. Just because there has been difficulty trying to verify supercentenarian claims for Asian countries beside Japan, that does not mean Japan should be held to fault. As a result if any article should be deleted, it is the list of Asian Supercentenarians until such time that list begins to differ significantly from the Japanese list. Crveni5 (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia articles require reliable references to support their articles. How can one link to a reliable source without infringing copyright? This is clearly an area of contradicting issues." There's no contradiction at all. Wikipedia articles should be based on multiple, independent reliable sources. Copyright for a list is only violated if we precisely copy a list from a single source (and if compiling that list requires creativity, which this topic does.) All you need to do to avoid copyright concerns is find additional reliable sources listing supercentenarians from Japan, and include the members of both lists in our own list. (If the topic is not covered by multiple reliable sources, and I'm not convinced that GRG even counts, then it's probably not a notable topic to begin with.) Pburka (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep per Hullaballoo and Crveni5. Continued disruption to prove a WP:POINT by Legacypac.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See for context. Legacypac (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:BOOMERANG for context.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep the articles have a different focus, Asia is all inclusive of countries in Asia, Japan is only Japan. If anything the Asia article should have just a summery of the Japanese supercentenarians page and a link to Japanese supercentenarians. AlbinoFerret  19:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Since 100% of the Asians are Japanese, there is no other focus. Which Japanese would you exclude? Legacypac (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_supercentenarians_from_Asia until non Japanese Asian supercentenarians have been identified and verified. Crveni5 (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Seeing how the List of supercentenarians from Asia was created in May of 2015 with basically a copy over of the Japanese supercentenarians page, and the Japanese supercentenarians page dates to 2008. I suggest that we keep the older one until new material for the Asia page makes it a necessary to have one. AlbinoFerret  18:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep the Japanese page can get into more context about the Japanese; Asia doesn't include only Japan. The Asia page should summarize the Japanese page, with more Asians being added if any are found that are undisputably verified/confirmed. The problem with other Asian countries at the moment is that none of them have supercentenarians that are known/verified (keep in mind also that "known" and "verified" are not the same thing). There's also a reason why claimed/unverified supercentenarians are not included, such as Shigechiyo Izumi (120 years) and Emperor Jimmu (126 years), the first emperor of Japan. Note also that there are other pages such as Africa, Europe, North America, Oceania, South America, and several other individual countries of which Japan is much more notable than. Vivexdino (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - There's no need for this list while the List of supercentenarians from Asia covers Japan due to the fact that Asian supercentenarians are mostly from Japan. STSC (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources about the subject to demonstrate that this is an appropriate standalone list, especially given the large number of supercentenarians from Japan. Overlap with other articles is irrelevant to retention of this one. Alansohn (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep These are distinct lists with different criteria. One of the main reasons that the Asia list so closely follows the Japan list is that a lot of the claims from other nations are dumped over to Longevity_claims and ignored. Japan has the distinction of having its own separate government sourcing so its claim are treated as "real" in contrast to claims from its neighbors. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.