Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nijiro Tokuda


 * 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 delete and redirect to List of the verified oldest men. MelanieN (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Nijiro Tokuda

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Article also tells us nothing outside the tables at List of Japanese supercentenarians. Belongs on a list as per WP:NOPAGE and the guidelines at WP:WOP CommanderLinx (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 *  Delete Redirect to List of the verified oldest men per CommanderLinx and probably qualifies for a speedy delete as a creation by block evading sock, User:104.56.23.57. Voceditenore (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've changed my recommendation to redirect, given that there is a target, and that this so-called "article" pre-dated the target. Voceditenore (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Confirming my recommendation of redirect even after the expansion, i.e. he worked for the Japanese telephone company, his hobby was photography, and he died in a nursing home. The articles on his death are human-interest news stories not obituaries, because there was nothing noteworthy to recount about his life apart from the fact that it was long. This does not belong as a stand-alone article. Voceditenore (talk) 06:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree re speedy David in DC (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect Keep per additional details from Japanese language publications. to List of the verified oldest men where they appear as an entry, we never delete when a redirect is appropriate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, then redirect The nominator's rationale is sound. The now-blocked editor's gambit here (and in a whole bunch of other cases) ought to be swiftly and surely stymied. Any other result, IMHO, encourages bad behavior and will be deleterious to our project of bulding an encyclopedia collaboratively. David in DC (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, with no redirect. The subject does not appear in the lists at the proposed target (he was the oldest living man in Japan at the time of his death, but not the oldest living person).  NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * He appears in List of the verified oldest men and the rule is to redirect when a target is available, and not to delete unless it contains a copyright infringement. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Right your are! I was looking at the list mentioned by the nominator, when I should have been looking at the one suggested by you.  I'll be changing my recommendation to 'delete and redirect'.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to List of the verified oldest men. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete/redirect So WP:NOPAGE it's even more not even funny than the other article which I said was so NOPAGE it's not even funny just a second ago.  E Eng  14:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete/redirect. WP:NOPAGE, WP:PERMASTUB, WP:ROUTINE coverage of human interest stories. ~ RobTalk 18:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Confirming my vote despite the expansion. The core issue is that this isn't notable. Routine human interest stories that take the form of "X lived this long" or "X died at age Y" can't make up substantial coverage. ~ RobTalk 03:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I have expanded the article with more biographical details about his life and work. I invite people to take a second look and reconsider their votes, as I think the original rationale of "Article also tells us nothing outside the tables at List of Japanese supercentenarians would no longer apply. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:38, 17 June 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.