Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tane Ikai

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. Tone 15:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tane Ikai

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Continuing nominations of nonnotable supercentenarians with no more than one reliable source per WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. 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 05:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment. JJBulten inserted those words, which are against Wiki policy and which I now deleted. To claim that even otherwise-notable biographies should be deleted because they are on a list is AGAINST Wiki policy. I have amended JJ's incorrect assertions. Thus, his nomination is worthless, as he only quotes his own errors.Ryoung122 17:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom 13-sentence article completely about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN. Only source is one 5-sentence Tulsa World article that does not support most of the material in the WP article (unsourced research presumably by GRG members, with "citation needed" already in article since 12/2007) and is insufficient to demonstrate notability. JJB 05:40, 5 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)[reply]
Keep. She is one of the top 10 oldest people ever. jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 11:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 5 sentences long, which is not substantial coverage. Inclusion in lists is fine. Neptune5000 (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is the oldest undisputed Japanese person ever. I don't see why her article can't be kept. DHanson317 (talk) 10:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 20:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep She was Japan's oldest undisputed person ever. 116 is notable.Longevitydude (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep1) The Japan's oldest undisputed person ever. 2)The world's 7th oldest person ever. Japf (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 07:22, 9 December 2010

(UTC)

Keep. Japan's oldest verified person ever. EVER. And international coverage exists. When newspapers in St. Louis, MO choose to cover someone who died on the other side of the planet, that says that outside sources considered this person notable...long before Wikipedia even existed.Ryoung122 17:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources for your assertions please? JJB 18:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Japan’s verified oldest female. A notable person. Amply documented.Cam46136 (talk) 08:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC) — Cam46136 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep per the reasons given above. Clearly notable topic. However, the article does need more references. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 12:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The difficulty of locating "some" sources is the more reason to keep articles like this, as non-experts won't be inclined to find the actual sources. Tane Ikai was in a lot of pre-internet sources, such as Facts on File, Japan Economic Newswire, etc. At this point, the best thing to do is to find internet sources. She's in the "Supercentenarians" book by the Max Planck Institute, for example.

http://www.demogr.mpg.de/books/drm/007/3-4.pdf

Ryoung122 05:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.