Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tane Ikai (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 keep. No consensus to delete, which is a default keep. A merge could be discussed elsewhere. Curiously, I found that I closed the first Afd back in 2010 as well, what are the odds :) Tone 09:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tane Ikai

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable person. Contains the usual trivia. Source 1 is a list. Source 2 confirms that she's dead and the other one is a GBWR listing. Nothing makes this person significant. Being old is not an achievement but is instead based on luck. » Shadowowl | talk 21:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Vexatious nomination as this topic was already discussed and kept previously. No new argument has been presented and this line of argument has failed in multiple recent cases such as Kane Tanaka and Chiyo Miyako. The nominator has been repeatedly warned about their overzealous nominations -- see here, for example -- but persists in making them. Andrew D. (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: You are hurting the case for keeping this article -- a cause I support! -- by comparing it to Chiyo Miyako, an article whose defense you and your friends so bungled that it wound up getting merged despite there definitely being enough to build a standalone article. (Another user's edit-warring to keep it as a standalone article after the deletion review ended is beside the point.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only sparse WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The vast majority of the content in the article is the usual longevity trivia (born, married, had kids, got separated, died). Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on three different lists, where they are easier to view, so this article is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:NOPAGE. E Eng 17:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable per WP:GNG, just like in 2010. gidonb (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus can change after 8 years. Especially when the 2010 AFD was full of sock-puppets from the World's Oldest People Yahoo group. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which user or users did you identify as sock puppets? gidonb (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge/redirect Per Eng#s and Newshunter12. Being the WOP does NOT automatically qualify as notable, there needs to be sufficient content to justify an article. There isn't, all meaningful encyclopedic content can be found in a list, or at a stretch, a mini-bio. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Another clumsy nomination. Having been the oldest person ever in Japan, let alone Asia, is a highly noteworthy achievement, and the article already includes more reliably sourced information than the vast majority of the sub-stubs left in the mainspace by Andrew Davidson and the like. I'm confident most of the community would !vote keep even without my help, but there's also the risk this AFD will be overrun by bullshit keepist !votes with no basis in policy, as happened here, and the closer dismisses them all as a result. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to appropriate list. WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB should almost certainly apply here if the sources meant she was "notable". There is never going to be more than 5 things to say about her (born, married, had kids, became oldest in country, died). Much better handled on a list and not a standalone article. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to one of the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. There seems to be more coverage here than usual, but nothing that justifies a stand-alone article per WP:N. Previous nominations are irrelevant (unless made in quick succession) because consensus can change and there is no policy that states being the oldest anything is automatically notable; it comes down to sourcing, which in this case I feel is insufficient for a stand-alone article. Canadian Paul 21:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Into the Rift (talk) 10:40, 26 September 2018 (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.