Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yukichi Chuganji


 * 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yukichi Chuganji

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Continuing nominations of nonnotable supercentenarians with no more than one reliable source per WT:WOP. I intend that, during discussion, any article supporters either find sources or merge sourced material to deal with the indisputable WP:GNG failure (the requirement of multiple reliable sources); without either of these actions, bare "keep" votes will not address that failure. I also intend that any who disagree with the WT:WOP proposal, which affirms GNG for deletion of these articles, should comment at that link. Article-specific details with my !vote below. JJB 05:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as nom 5-sentence article completely about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN. Only source is one 20-sentence BBC article that does not support most of the material in the WP article (unsourced research presumably by GRG members) and is insufficient to demonstrate notability. Citation lack already tagged in article since 11/2007. JJB 05:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment. You are not supposed to vote on your own nomination. Also, using weasel words like "nonnotable" to bias your phrasing is inappropriate. Notability is established by outside sources, not you...and further, notability is established by the existence of those sources, not whether someone has done the work (or not) to source them. Ryoung 122 00:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. He was, at one point, the oldest living man, and may have also been the oldest living person (a title that is not often held by males). jc iindyysgvxc  (my contributions) 11:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * jc, your contributions to three AFDs each argue based on an implied belief in "inherent notability" for the individual criteria you state. While further consensus is still sought at the discussion link in the nom, I believe it established that there is no consensus for biography-level notability inhering in single-source cases on such broad criteria: the few cases truly inherently notable also turn out to be generally notable. Consensus indicates instead that these individuals have only line-item notability, i.e., one reliable source would permit the individual to be (only) a line-item in one or more list articles: and in all three of your cases, the individual is in at least seven WP lists already, which is still excessive. JJB 16:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The only source in the article is 20 sentences long, which is not substantial coverage. Inclusion in lists is sufficient. Neptune 5000  ( talk ) 06:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Notability is not dis-established or established by article length. You could write a long paper on your grandmother, that doesn't make her notable. Notability is established by the fact that outside reliable sources recognized him as the world's oldest man. I find it creepy that some people treat these humans as if they are just numbers. Ryoung 122 00:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Are you kidding me, this man was the worlds oldest living man, hes Japan's oldest undisputed man ever, and one the the oldest undisputed men ever, you might as well nominate the worldsoldestpeople project for deletion if your gonna go after the most notable articles of the subject.Longevitydude (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep One of the oldest living males on record and Japan's oldest undisputed male. Don't see why we can't keep it. DHanson317 (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply: DHanson317, your contributions to six AFDs each argue based on an implied belief in "inherent notability" for the individual criteria you state. While further consensus is still sought at the discussion link in the nom, I believe it established that there is no consensus for biography-level notability inhering in single-source cases on such broad criteria: the few cases truly inherently notable also turn out to be generally notable. Consensus indicates instead that these individuals have only line-item notability, i.e., one reliable source would permit the individual to be (only) a line-item in one or more list articles: and in your six cases, the individual is in an average of seven WP lists already, which is still excessive. JJB 21:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment. You fail to mention, JJ, that for all six articles, YOU nominated them for deletion, then COI-voted for your own nomination. Now you are "spamming" by using the same message on each discussion board, and attempting to intimidate others.

Your claims of "consensus" are false; you are citing your own proposals, which others have not accepted or bothered to respond to. In fact, you are damaging Wikipedia and if this poor behavior keeps up, I will have to start an ArbCom for YOU. Ryoung 122 00:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Recognized by multiple reliable sources as world's oldest man from January 3, 2002 until Sept 28 2003 (over a year). Also Japan's oldest undisputed man on record. Ryoung 122 00:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't you quote the policy you think I violated and/or link where I intimidated? Why don't you note that Judith and David and I have harmoniously built the current WP:WOP section, nobody has objected to its text (I couldn't find in your comments a single objection to the text presented), and thus there is a WP:SILENT consensus? Why don't you use the ArbCom case already set up and custom-templated for exactly what you threaten to do? Hint: it's called Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity/Evidence; you could at least put up a placeholder for your evidence so we know what you're doing besides (apparently) getting the evidence deadline stalled for a month (diffs as needed). And of course, why don't you source the article? JJB 03:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * JJ, if you had any respect for an opponent, you don't "swing" when they are not in the ring. I already stated I was attempting to finish my second Master's degree this week. Common courtesy would dictate to "wait" to further these discussions later. I already erased some of your weasel-wording. I 100% object to the false interpretation that supercentenarian biographies should not exist, even if they meet standards of notability. Being in a list is NOT enough. You don't say that since Hank Aaron is in a list of home run hitters, RBI leaders, and runs scorers that, well, that's enough, who needs a bio? Nonsense.


 * Also: Itsmejudith already indicated she doesn't agree with a lot of what you're doing...another false charge.


 * Third...the 2007 discussion suggested that when notability cannot be independently demonstrated, there still could be a mini-bio in the "list of" pages. Where do you think that idea came from? Wikipedia.


 * Fourth...I realize that we don't need an article or even a mini-bio on EVERY supercentenarian. I suggest you put off further nominations for deletion and come to the table for some practical proposals. For example, I generally favor biographies if the person is:


 * 1. Recognized by reliable outside sources as the World's Oldest Person or World's Oldest Man.
 * 2. Claims to be the world's oldest person or oldest man and has international coverage.
 * 3. Is 114+ (or alternately, is in the top-100 list all-time) and has substantial media coverage outside the local area. Thus, Ruth Bauder Clark,111, may not be notable as her obit only appeared in the Sarasota news, but someone like Beatrice Farve was featured in USA Today (coverage outside the local area), which argues that OUTSIDE sources selected this person to be notable enough.
 * 4. Oldest persons of a nation should at least have a mini-bio on the "list of" page, if not notable enough for a standalone article.
 * 5. War veterans may be notable for reasons that combine age with their tie to an historical event (i.e., Harry Patch).


 * Ryoung 122 17:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This part I'm only gonna say once. Put the same number of colons before each paragraph in a multiparagraph comment. You already know how to do it because you do it for the first paragraph, and sometimes you have even done it correctly for all paragraphs. You have refused my polite subtle hints on this topic, and it is disruptive.
 * Now I don't recall seeing you say it was a master's, but I made no conscious attempt to stomp on your schedule. If you knew a master's deadline was coming up, it was a bad idea to break policies left and right (and completely ignore a Mediation Cabal you agreed to) to the degree that another editor (Judith) announced the intent to file at ArbCom, which I then seconded and opened. Since it appears you got the evidence deadline put off for a month, I switched instead to WP:WOP improvement and AFDs on obvious GNG failures (which every keeper in 9 articles has failed to comment on, except for Siamese in two cases out of about thirty). After five keep votes on this article, nobody has responded to the point that there is only one reliable source and that creates zero presumption of notability (i.e., the deletion arguments are valid, the keep arguments are patently not, and the better argument should carry the day).
 * I appreciate your two interactive changes to WP:WOP; they were based on your misunderstanding the point, which I'm happy to say I have now clarified. Apropos to these AFDs, you now have people saying that I believe Calment should be deleted (I don't), which seemed an out-of-the-blue charge until I discovered your misunderstanding (compare the ambiguous draft with the clarified draft). I don't believe and never said "supercentenarian biographies should not exist, even if they meet standards of notability", although I can understand your passion leading you to misread the edit that way. This type of misunderstanding has been shown to you to be typical of your interpretative methods, and yet you do not take safeguards to protect against it, but instead (circumstantial evidence indicates) you tell a large group of others how bad the third party is in your misunderstood picture. I will note this separately in comments to Peter.
 * The rest of your comments are appropriate for WT:WOP, to which I shall copy them. I should note, however, that any arguments by keepers for inherent notability do not change the consensus established at WP:WOP that GNG failure trumps inherent notability: I say this is consensus because not a single editor, including you, has attempted to pass off an alternate consensus at WP:WOP or talk, or even start a discussion there, to the effect that some inherent notability would save this article. I started the discussion, and I am continuing it by bringing your comments there. (I don't know why you didn't save your precious time by commenting there in the first place, as I asked in the nom.) However, aside from my transferring your text, every editor at that page has supported (actively or passively) the general guideline that this page (Chuganji) be deleted. That guideline, which you let stand during your edits to it linked above, is currently: "Articles on centenarians and supercentenarians are biographies and the notability guidelines for biographies apply. Independent coverage in a plurality of reliable sources is required." The case should be closed. JJB 18:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep. The 5th oldest man ever.Japf (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Keep. Was Japan’s oldest man. A notable person. Amply documented.Cam46136 (talk) 09:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC) — Cam46136 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep For John J. Bulten every supercentenarian is nonnotable, even Jean Calment. He and his friends nominate all these articles about supercentenarians, because of his religious believes. He believes the only notable elderly people are those mentioned in the bible, who claim to be minimum 130+ years old. Now where is the proof these people were really that old? What stops me from "requesting" deletion of articles of every single elderly person from the bible? Who says the genesis is a reliable source? I dont! I do not believe the ages claimed in the bible. And that is my right to believe this, because we live in a free world. So in name of the free world. Let us stop this battle once and for all. I vote to keep all these articles, because if they are deleted, things may get out of control. We are having a battle here against believers of aged people in the bible/genesis and believers of aged people in the current world. Just my two cents. Petervermaelen 07:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment to the first and last of these nine AFDs, applicable to all and intended to be read by all closers. I am too angry at WP's systemic failure, as shown in these AFDs, for me to provide the full analysis necessary. The short form is that there is significant evidence of canvassing, and that I will need to present it to a different forum than to the AFD closer(s). The majority of these AFDs have had not a single keep comment provide a reliable source, and in the remainder there has been no evidence that a new source or two confers notability (except for David in DC's judgment in one case). Those who have commented at the WikiProject have all agreed with the formulation of GNG that makes all of these articles still deletes, or potential merges in a couple cases. Any appearance of consensus, if it still remains after the evidence of canvassing, SPAs, arguments to avoid, and distractions ad nauseam is accounted for, is the result of an endemic, years-long infiltration of walled-garden builders into WP, as documented (in part) at the open ArbCom case that discusses this very behavior. I have manifold reasons for my conviction that these are neither consensus keeps nor nonconsensus keeps but in fact GNG failures that should be deleted or merged and will be; one reason that comes to mind is that my last salvo of 8 AFDs with exactly the same GNG failures were all deleted, in accord with the many many AFDs linked in the nom. However, I rest secure in my knowledge that WP does the right thing in the long run, even if any closer is not able to appreciate all the facts I have on hand to bear on these cases. JJB 06:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment/Keep JJB, your comment "I am too angry..." proves you may need to take some time off. You are only making yourself, and not us, miserable. Keep because in addition to being the oldest ever undisputed Japanese male, Chuganji was also the world's oldest person at one time should Hongo's case be discounted. AfDing him is ILLOGICAL. Brendan  ( talk,  contribs ) 15:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep As nominated, this article was well within the policy for designating it an article for deletion. I've rescued it. It's been a mess, according to it's tag, for more than four years. It's still full of stuff that's got no source, and a bit of a WP:COATRACK for disputes about other peoples' actual ages. But, as now edited, it may just barely scrape the high jump bar of sufficient sources to keep. But if so, the bar is wobbling on its supporting brackets from the scrape. A closer who found my edits insufficient, and that the bar did not survive the scrape --- but rather wobbled and then fell into the landing pit --- would hear no argument from me. It's a damn close call. One of the few. Most of the recent nominations of hobbyist longevity stubcruft have been un-rescuable and clearly neede deletion. The castigation and approbation being heaped on JJB for this is wholly unwonted. David in DC (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Oldest Japanese man ever. Deserves recoginition and article. Even if he was 2nd, 3rd, whatever. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2010 (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.