The result was keep. The main argument presented for deletion is that the AP article is unlinked - however this does not make it unverifiable - WP:RS does not say that all sources have to be available on the Internet. If someone had read the AP article and were able to confirm that the details in that do not verify the article contents, then I'd be more inclined towards deletion, but the source would appear to be a valid one which could theoretically be verified should someone be willing to make the effort to do so. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 05:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC) reply
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 05:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%9F%B3%E5%B4%8E%E4%BC%9D%E8%94%B5 http://spysee.jp/%E7%9F%B3%E5%B4%8E%E4%BC%9D%E8%94%B5/50481/ http://r25.yahoo.co.jp/keyword/detail/?kw=%E7%9F%B3%E5%B4%8E%E4%BC%9D%E8%94%B5 http://talent.yahoo.co.jp/pf/detail/pp246275 etc etc Cam46136 ( talk) 03:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Cam46136 reply
Notability is established by outside sources, not your opinion of longevity.
As noted earlier, DavidinDC has a COI as he was recruited/canvassed to these deletion efforts by JJBulten, who also "self-voted" for his own nomination, another COI.
There is INTERNATIONAL coverage of this case. In fact, this article should have been tagged for sources first, to give people time to look for them. This is just another bad-faith edit by JJBulten. Note also that JJ nominated a lot of articles on December 5 and posted the same message on each one, another violation of WP AFD policy which suggests that each article for deletion should be judged individually. Ryoung122 05:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Ryoung122 05:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC) reply
in this article you can see that David in dc can change his mind sometimes and so did another editor, because of reliable sources, so you cant be too hard on David in dc, hes not totally bias, in fact hes really quite friendly when you look past his opposing views on most of these afds. Longevitydude ( talk) 12:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The main argument presented for deletion is that the AP article is unlinked - however this does not make it unverifiable - WP:RS does not say that all sources have to be available on the Internet. If someone had read the AP article and were able to confirm that the details in that do not verify the article contents, then I'd be more inclined towards deletion, but the source would appear to be a valid one which could theoretically be verified should someone be willing to make the effort to do so. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 05:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC) reply
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 05:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%9F%B3%E5%B4%8E%E4%BC%9D%E8%94%B5 http://spysee.jp/%E7%9F%B3%E5%B4%8E%E4%BC%9D%E8%94%B5/50481/ http://r25.yahoo.co.jp/keyword/detail/?kw=%E7%9F%B3%E5%B4%8E%E4%BC%9D%E8%94%B5 http://talent.yahoo.co.jp/pf/detail/pp246275 etc etc Cam46136 ( talk) 03:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Cam46136 reply
Notability is established by outside sources, not your opinion of longevity.
As noted earlier, DavidinDC has a COI as he was recruited/canvassed to these deletion efforts by JJBulten, who also "self-voted" for his own nomination, another COI.
There is INTERNATIONAL coverage of this case. In fact, this article should have been tagged for sources first, to give people time to look for them. This is just another bad-faith edit by JJBulten. Note also that JJ nominated a lot of articles on December 5 and posted the same message on each one, another violation of WP AFD policy which suggests that each article for deletion should be judged individually. Ryoung122 05:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Ryoung122 05:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC) reply
in this article you can see that David in dc can change his mind sometimes and so did another editor, because of reliable sources, so you cant be too hard on David in dc, hes not totally bias, in fact hes really quite friendly when you look past his opposing views on most of these afds. Longevitydude ( talk) 12:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC) reply