Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misao Okawa


 * 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) 00:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Misao Okawa

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Longevity is not a reason for inclusion here. Wikipedia is not a directory of longest living people Fiddle   Faddle  21:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. She was the oldest woman in the world part of her life. Georgia guy (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    00:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    00:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

*Keep By this point, Canadian Paul should be laughed out of Wikipedia for attempting to nominate someone who's the 6th oldest person in history. Anyone this desperate to prove a point needs to take some time off, as they have successfully embarrassed themselves to the point that the only thing they could do that is more embarrassing would be nominating Shigechiyo Izumi or Jeanne Calment for deletion. This is not up for debate, this is literally the worst AfD I have ever witnessed, an embarrassment to the process. This is what happens when AfD decisions are twisted to the point that no one bothers to try anymore. --2602:306:8381:7390:C091:2760:198B:C94 (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Editor has been indefinitely blocked as a block evading sockpuppet. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: She is world record holder, so notable. -- Human 3015   TALK   00:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep; her life is notable for its length, as testified by the sourcing. Saying "longevity is not a reason" strikes me as a category error. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Delete the world oldest person article?...It is incorrect. also, this article has been created with the other 30 languages of Wikipedia. This person is well-known, reason for deleting the article does not have even one. You're why hated so much longevity article? I do not understand the meaning of your action.--Inception2010 (talk) 10:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC) — Inception2010 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep: world record holder. period.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Obviously. Nominator has proposed a number of articles be deleted, 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&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 2602:306:8381:7390:C091:2760:198B:C94, Please be mindful of your comments towards other editors and keep to a respectful and constructive form of criticism. Not only does your statement not make sense (Canadian Paul did not create nor vote on this AFD), but it's disruptive and demeaning, and doesn't accomplish what this process is supposed to do.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Obviously notable person with significant sources and coverage to easily pass WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC (and I didn't even have to dig). The nominator of this ticket cited WP:NOTDIR as the main reason for listing this article for WP:AFD. There are no directories in this article whatsoever. Timtrent - I highly recommend that you brush up on WP:NOT and what the definition of a directory is. Directories are stand-alone lists of items that aren't associated with or significantly contribute to a Wikipedia topic or subject, such as a list of employee names and their phone number extensions under the organization's article, a syllabus or agenda of items for a concert, programming guides for a radio station, yellow pages or white pages - those are examples of directories. This article meets all notability criterion and does not qualify for deletion under AFD.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I redacted this vote and changed to Delete. However, after taking additional time to find and read What_is_one_event, I believe that the person does not fall into WP:1E. Specifically, noting that reliable sources cover her prolonged life with coverage on her 114th birthday, and so on. These constitute as separate events in her longevity, which is notable within itself. Therefore, I am officially reverting back to my original vote, and believe that the article should be kept. I apologize for all of the redaction; I'm just happy that I found that essay, which helped to clarify my assumptions regarding WP:1E and articles regarding people who lived an above-average life span.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   13:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep A notable individual that has been cited in mutiple reliable sources, as the world's oldest person.Bodgey5 (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Oshwah says it best. Perhaps it is time for this to be closed early. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete As discussed at Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo (2nd nomination), simply being the oldest woman at one time was not sufficient for notability (also this isn't the Academy Awards, these "winners" are based solely on various sources alleging that she actually was the oldest woman alive at that time) because as discussed at Articles for deletion/Bob Taggart (2nd nomination), obituary sources which they all are better to be considered WP:ROUTINE coverage that would be expected rather than examples of notability as required by WP:N. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Notice that EVERY other person in this discussion - including editors uninvolved in this project - can clearly see that 1. Being the oldest person in the world is a notable accolade, and 2. The coverage in reliable sources is significant, and therefore this article should be kept. Citing a previous AfD to argue that this person isn't notable and that this one should be deleted is ridiculous (Koto Okubo wasn't even the world's oldest person and was unusual in that she didn't get covered widely in the media). -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Except it was different when it was Okubo as the oldest woman. Is the rule the oldest person, man or woman at that time? Therefore only the people at Template:Oldest people? I don't see the consensus for that from the other discussions. This feels like a complete one-off and I can't figure out why. And no, I'm not citing the prior one to reject this article per se; I'm saying that all the comments here that "Oldest woman ever = automatic keep" are quite odd and differ from all the prior discussions about this category of people. Most of Template:Oldest people is not written and as I noted, the depth of coverage here is largely obituaries which basically is routine coverage for most people. Not everyone who has a obituary is notable enough for inclusion so I'd need something more. All these AFDs are going wild with a ton of keeps or a ton of deletes (or just my delete and a ton of keeps) for some reason and we haven't seen to have figured out the middle ground yet and to me, "Oldest person ever" isn't it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to note for the record that 8 out of the 14 references listed at the bottom of the article were written before the subject had died. So to describe the coverage as "largely obituaries" is innacurate. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep No specific policy cited to justify deletion. Subject is notable enough by virtue of the depth of coverage. clpo13(talk) 20:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Being the world's oldest person in and of itself does not confer notability per any policy, but the extent of coverage in this case seems to satisfy WP:N. Canadian   Paul  21:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - I took some extra time to evaluate Ricky81682 argument with precedence and WP:1E's relevancy with this nomination. In short, I agree with his argument and I am changing my vote. 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)   23:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Changing back to Keep - See explanation.
 * I'm not sure I understand your logic. It's like saying "If Tiger Woods wasn't a golfer, he wouldn't be notable, so he shouldn't have an article". The whole point is that she didn't die at a young age, and that's why she's notable. Being extremely aged isn't one event any more than being a golfer is; it's an intrinsic part of the person. The amount of coverage that the world's oldest people receive in the news is evidence that the oldest people in the world are notable. Furthermore, it's not true to say that AfD's in the past have deleted articles like this. World's oldest people titleholders are typically considered notable enough for an article. (P.s. I know I've posted a similar message elsewhere in response to a similar comment, but not everyone will have seen that one). -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep A myriad of sources from different parts of the world (such as Great-Britain, Brazil , and Japan , for instance) have reported on this woman, most notably during the time when she was the world's oldest person - as the three previously cited sources all confirm. As such, she has gained enough notability and media coverage to be considered encyclopedia-proof. Fiskje88 (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC) — Fiskje88 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Snow Keep - Article is about a person who has garnered widespread media coverage. Former oldest living person, and the fifth-oldest person ever. Clearly notable. Nominator does not provide a policy-based reason to delete. Chessrat  ( talk, contributions ) 18:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep A woman who lives to be 117 is notable, end of story. I think the problem with many of the recent longevity based Afd's (of which there have been a lot, I can hardly keep up) is that the nominator's are not interested and cannot understand how anyone else could be interested in this topic. I'm not interested in footballers, but I understand their articles serve a purpose. I also don't understand the nominator's point that "Wikipedia is not a directory of longest living people" - agreed 100%, but it's also not a directory of footballers, Members of Parliament, ice hockey players, beauty pageant winners, Olympic cyclists etc. If you're going to apply the same standards to all of these categories, then you're going to have a busy week. JKSD93 (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC) — JKSD93 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep = article about a old supercentenarian. No reason to delete. Per other users. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - She is the oldest Japanese person in history. --Nixus Minimax (talk) 11:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC) — Nixus Minimax (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - longstanding tradition exists that the "oldest person from X large nation" is kept. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2015 (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.