Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadayoshi Tanabe (2nd nomination)


 * 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 redirect to List of the verified oldest people. Mifter (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Sadayoshi Tanabe
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No independent notability besides this person's reaching an advanced age (the cited works are minor memoirs about his administrative job, fails WP:SCHOLAR). His entry on the List of the verified oldest men is sufficient. — JFG talk 10:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete This article blatantly fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like his work history and helped create a college level student exchange program. His published works are minor and primarily autobiographical in nature, which fails WP:SCHOLAR. His name, life dates, and nationality are best handled on the List of the verified oldest men where they already reside. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of the verified oldest men Working for the local government for 70 years doesn't meet any SNG that I'm aware of. His notability stems from his longevity, which is why I advocate a redirect. Papaursa (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of the verified oldest people. --Garam (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Really, there's no point in trying to apply the usual practices for AfD of researching what sources are available, and whether the subject might meet WP:GNG. The fact that this person was thought interesting enough to record an oral history in 1971, suggests that he might very well be notable - there might indeed be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The "delete" voters seem to be assuming that there will not be, and just keep posting AfDs until all the supercentenarians get deleted - regardless of whether they might actually be notable or not! So dismissive - exactly how is "A Survey of the Movements and Work on Fair Elections" "autobiographical" or "memoir"? Where is the evidence about the impact of his work - or lack of impact? It seems to me that there are a lot of assumptions here, tantamount to "because he was a supercentenarian, therefore he cannot be notable" - followed by, "even if he is notable, he still doesn't merit more than an entry in a list". I will note again that this AfD is one of SIXTEEN AfDs for supercentenarians POSTED ON THE SAME DAY - it is quite impossible to do adequate research on all of them (given that there are others every other day of the week too). RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete there has been many years on most of these pages to add refs and prove notability. The lack of significant coverage is chronic and obvious. These non-notable supercen bios have been brgging for cleanup for years. Had he not failed to die at a more normal age no one would have noticed him. Legacypac (talk) 08:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete/redirect/merge Another classic NOPAGE. EEng 05:44, 4 December 2018 (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.