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.
Keep this one. Unlike the other supercentenarians nominated at the same time, this individual was, for a time, the world's oldest living man. That's a far more credible claim to notability than (from some of the other nominated articles) the oldest living person in California, the oldest Irish-born person, or even the oldest Jewish person. The latter are all, at least arguably, trivial intersections. But there is a unique oldest living man at any given time and, presuming there is third-party coverage sufficient to provide sourcing, those record-holders likely do have an inherent claim to notability.
Squeamish Ossifrage (
talk)
21:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep: Biographical articles on Wikipedia only survive on the basis of "person is notable or non-notable". And record holder of "world's oldest living man" is notable. --
Human3015TALK21:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Ricky81682, the Japanese sources numbered 2 and 3 are dead links, but their titles are about him becoming the oldest man in Japan. Then as you can see from the English titles, sources 4 and 5 are about him becoming the world's oldest man. So they are not all obituaries.
AtHomeIn神戸 (
talk)
00:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Being the oldest anything does not, in and of itself confer automatic notability, but it does appear in this case that the subject of the article has met the coverage requirements of
WP:N.
CanadianPaul22:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - I realized that I gave my vote in haste, and mostly because of the fact that the nominator tagged many "long living" humans citing
WP:NOTDIR. Taking into account the notability claimed in the article, as well as Wikipedia's policies, I believe that this person does pass
WP:GNG and
WP:BASIC (perhaps
WP:ANYBIO if the person won an award?), but this article also falls under
WP:1E, in that this person (had she died at an average age) would have otherwise not been notable at all. All of the sources provided in the article, as well as other sources I found, only mention this person's death. As pointed out by Ricky81682, AfD's in the past have come to a consensus to delete articles of people just like this one. Per
WP:GNG and
WP:BASIC, this person is notable. But,
WP:1E is meant to be a check against people who pass the "
notable test". Instead of each long-living person having their own article, they could instead be mentioned in an article regarding long-living persons.
~Oshwah~ (talk)(contribs)22:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Moved to Keep.'reply
Keep I notice it was mentioned here that Mr. Momoi was mainly reported on when he died, yet I beg to differ; not only did his "ascension to the throne" gain him media attention (such as
[7],
[8],
[9], and
[10] to mention just a few), he was also reported on in his home country/in Asia during his life:
[11], and
[12] for a start. Being unable to read/understand another language does not alter the fact that this man was regularly reported on in the last years before his death.
Fiskje88 (
talk)
16:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC) —
Fiskje88 (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Keep World record such as fastest...., loudest..., most number of times..., etc. might be trivial and generally not notable. But this is a case of unique biological/medical condition. It is not something that you perform but a natural phenomenon. The subject will be remembered in medical history.
Chhandama (
talk)
07:40, 19 October 2015 (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.
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.
Keep this one. Unlike the other supercentenarians nominated at the same time, this individual was, for a time, the world's oldest living man. That's a far more credible claim to notability than (from some of the other nominated articles) the oldest living person in California, the oldest Irish-born person, or even the oldest Jewish person. The latter are all, at least arguably, trivial intersections. But there is a unique oldest living man at any given time and, presuming there is third-party coverage sufficient to provide sourcing, those record-holders likely do have an inherent claim to notability.
Squeamish Ossifrage (
talk)
21:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep: Biographical articles on Wikipedia only survive on the basis of "person is notable or non-notable". And record holder of "world's oldest living man" is notable. --
Human3015TALK21:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Ricky81682, the Japanese sources numbered 2 and 3 are dead links, but their titles are about him becoming the oldest man in Japan. Then as you can see from the English titles, sources 4 and 5 are about him becoming the world's oldest man. So they are not all obituaries.
AtHomeIn神戸 (
talk)
00:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Being the oldest anything does not, in and of itself confer automatic notability, but it does appear in this case that the subject of the article has met the coverage requirements of
WP:N.
CanadianPaul22:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - I realized that I gave my vote in haste, and mostly because of the fact that the nominator tagged many "long living" humans citing
WP:NOTDIR. Taking into account the notability claimed in the article, as well as Wikipedia's policies, I believe that this person does pass
WP:GNG and
WP:BASIC (perhaps
WP:ANYBIO if the person won an award?), but this article also falls under
WP:1E, in that this person (had she died at an average age) would have otherwise not been notable at all. All of the sources provided in the article, as well as other sources I found, only mention this person's death. As pointed out by Ricky81682, AfD's in the past have come to a consensus to delete articles of people just like this one. Per
WP:GNG and
WP:BASIC, this person is notable. But,
WP:1E is meant to be a check against people who pass the "
notable test". Instead of each long-living person having their own article, they could instead be mentioned in an article regarding long-living persons.
~Oshwah~ (talk)(contribs)22:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Moved to Keep.'reply
Keep I notice it was mentioned here that Mr. Momoi was mainly reported on when he died, yet I beg to differ; not only did his "ascension to the throne" gain him media attention (such as
[7],
[8],
[9], and
[10] to mention just a few), he was also reported on in his home country/in Asia during his life:
[11], and
[12] for a start. Being unable to read/understand another language does not alter the fact that this man was regularly reported on in the last years before his death.
Fiskje88 (
talk)
16:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC) —
Fiskje88 (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Keep World record such as fastest...., loudest..., most number of times..., etc. might be trivial and generally not notable. But this is a case of unique biological/medical condition. It is not something that you perform but a natural phenomenon. The subject will be remembered in medical history.
Chhandama (
talk)
07:40, 19 October 2015 (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.