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 there is clearly no consensus to delete this page, and the relist has allowed the discussion to come to a firmer conclusion than it may previously have appeared to. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kama Chinen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

WP:BIO1E. Only notable for her age, and 2 out of 3 sources are about her death. The other (Abc news) is probably a list. And I want to repeat what was said at the AFD in 2008 : she and her family had specifically asked the Japanese government to remain anonymous and they respected her wishes » Shadowowl | talk 16:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into List of Japanese supercentenarians FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me what there is to merge to that other article. There is only one sentence in this article that is actually about her and that would not fit in a list, so just what would we be merging? This article was deleted once before for a reason. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:33, 21 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 content of the article is pretty much just trivia on how she relates to other peoples longevity milestones or longevity milestones for various jurisdictions. Besides one sentence about her health, there is essentially nothing said about her in an article about her that doesn't fit in a list. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on four different lists, so this article is not needed. Given this individuals apparent obscurity, I think heavy weight should be given to her and her family's desire for anonymity as well. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have limited information about the subject but she is nevertheless notable because of the widespread, global coverage. The threshold for notability on Wikipedia is quite low. See Chitty (cricketer)these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. r better. Andrew D. (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You invalidate your own point by mentioning the cricketer, which played one first-class match and is notable. This person is not notable and she and her familiy specifically asked to not get media attention. Your rationale is basically WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and ignoring someones death wishes. The maximum of information that should be given is being mentioned on a list, no need for this article. » Shadowowl | talk 21:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OSE states that "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". We don't just have articles about little know figures like Chitty. We also have articles about other similar subjects such as Kane Tanaka and Chiyo Miyako. These were similarly contested recently and are still there. We have clear precendents and so there is not the slightest case for deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, fine that you bring that up! Are you still grave dancing over the admins that left because your group of keepists and their friend Fish and Karate? I would be fine if you didn't bring that up, but now I know that your really a <expletive>. Anyways, I would recommend NOT using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS while trying to say that you didn't use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. » Shadowowl | talk 22:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, I don't see how your argument of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXITS proves in any way that this article should be kept. There is no policy or guideline that the oldest anything is entitled to being notable enough for an article. You're not presenting an actual argument, your just creating keepist noise. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to appropriate list(s), obviously. There's no apparent basis for more than a stub. EEng 17:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep This source, published immediately after Baines's death, would seem to discredit the unsourced claim made by the original OP that she requested to remain anonymous and a research group dug and dug until they found out anyway, unless it can be verified that this happened before she became the world's oldest. The present OP is, therefore, based on unsourced speculation, and should be promptly dismissed, unless User:Shadowowl wants to withdraw this nomination before that happens. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hijiri88: This only mentions the person once. Anyways, this person should be only having a list entry. » Shadowowl | talk 09:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadowowl: Umm ... can you read Japanese? Or English? I wasn't proposing using the source to expand the article, but (clearly) using it to refute the unsourced (or, rather, Wikipedia-sourced) assertion you made above that she and her family wanted her identity kept private. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect to appropriate list. There is no guideline or policy that says "oldest X is notable". If the sources in this article meant she was somehow "notable" then WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB should almost certainly apply here as there is NOTHING to say about her other than she was born, she became the oldest in the world and then she died. That's the entirety of the article bar one sentence about her using a wheelchair and another about who her successor/predecessor was which isn't enough to justify an article. There is never going to be more than six sentences (and two of those strain to pad this article) about her so entry on a list is enough. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for more or less the same reasons I nominated this page for deletion a decade ago. In terms of sourcing, not much has changed; there is still no evidence of the type of coverage that would be sufficient to meet WP:N. There's nothing here of encyclopedic value that couldn't be reproduced effectively on one of the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 21:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Canadian Paul: I'm not that invested in keeping this article one way or the other (I think this AFD should be speedy-closed without prejudice as a result of its being based on a flawed premise, but emphasis on "without prejudice"), but could you provide a source for the claim that Chinen and her family wished to keep her identity private? It seems almost impossible that a private research group "dug and dug" until they found out who she was in the space of a single day after her predecessor in the "oldest in the world" spot passed away (per the source I cited above, this information was readily available within one day), and it seems almost as unlikely that they put that much effort into finding out who she was in advance, based on the assumption that Baines would die before she did. This is all OR, of course, but I'm not arguing for it to be included in the article, just for the article to be kept pending some source that verifies the mutual premise of both your original AFD and the present one. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: I'll look for more direct evidence when I have the time (since that was many years ago), but you can see from the first response from the GRG that they more or less confirmed my assertion... they just thought that since they managed to find her name printed years before she turned 110 (and thus asked explicitly to remain anonymous) it was sufficient for Wikipedia. And no, they did not wait to do their digging until she became the world's oldest person... they started more or less when she turned 110 (or maybe a few years later, when her age was even more significant... I'm not sure) and so they knew it long before she became the world's oldest person. There is a small, but robust fanclub around this topic, hence the ARBCOM restrictions on editing this topic and several bans. Canadian Paul 05:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Hijiri 88. Into the Rift (talk) 10:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge/Redirect Insufficient content to justify an article. Supposed "widespread global coverage" is nothing more than the typical passing mentions, so FAILS GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets WP:GNG. Death reported worldwide. Non-notable people from Asia don't have articles written about them across continents. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Your opinion. Fine, but then show the quality sources. And you have no respect for dead people and their wishes. » Shadowowl | talk 20:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did, I added it to the article. And I would kindly ask that you strike your statement questioning my motives. It is uncalled for. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the great sources, like a blocked site, a newspaper article of which is unknown if it has ever existed, a dead link, and a subscription article. Great sources, indeed. » Shadowowl | talk 20:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have a verified article, available to all, from the Los Angeles Times. Sources do not need to be in English (WP:NOENG). Sources do not need to be online to meet WP:V (Wikipedia:Offline sources(. I'm having a bit of difficulty understanding why an experienced editor such as yourself would make such an argument. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked up the offline source, [1], and it does NOT mention her name! As I said, she requested to be ANONYMOUS, until a group started digging for information!. It does NOT prove why she would need an article, especially because the privacy concern. Would you be fine if I posted your full name, birthdate and everything here after you died? the SAME for the Japanese article ![2]. And I've read the LA Times article, and it is about another person! Did you even care to read the refs? » Shadowowl | talk 20:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the Bismark article. I discounted the CTV article you mention. (and if used, looks like the citation needs to be updated). The Japanese article does indeed mention her name. My "keep" vote is solely based upon the encyclopedic notability of the topic. I have read the references. I make no claim that any particular source imparts notability by itself, and certainly the LA Times article would not be SIGCOV standing alone. Her life and death were reported by hundreds of newspapers across the globe. I am of the opinion that such coverage is highly indicative of notability, and that general readership is likely to seek encyclopedic information on the topic. You disagree, and that is fine. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare considers women's names, addresses, birthdays, etc. to be unpublished on the basis of their intentions. Those 100 newspapers are probably a lot of sensationalism and false positives due to the Romanian word chimen. The only reason her name is published is because the assholes over at GRG dug that up. » Shadowowl | talk 21:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notability has been established. Passes WP:NBIO and WP:GNG, so I see no reason that the article requires deletion. Could it use improvement and cleanup? Probably. But deletion is not cleanup. Kirbanzo (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is an asshole, is it up to WP to copy the asshole? It does NOT pass GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 21:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you tell us ? After all you recently claimed to be an asshole on your page so apparently your the expert on the matter. 208.54.36.191 (talk) 04:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NEXIST. Impressive worldwide coverage. In addition, there seems to be a consensus that persons achieving the status of oldest in the world are notable as such. gidonb (talk) 17:51, 29 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.