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 09:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yukichi Chuganji (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)

Non-notable person. Being old is not an achievement and just based on luck. Sources are GRG and 2 articles about his death. » Shadowowl | talk 21:48, 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) 22:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The ANI thread was for that I nominated 160 articles in 1 day. That was way to much, and I acknowledged that I was wrong there. Trying to get this article speedy kept because of admin incompetence and an ANI thread for mass nominating is just awful. This article will certainly not be speedy kept. There are no reasons to keep this. » Shadowowl | talk 10:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change. It's easier to have a much clearer discussion when the 110 club put their socks away. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep based on results of two prior AfDs, with no new argument being presented as to why they should be overturned. BBC and LA Times articles are reliable sources, and there are others available as well - see here at the Japan Times, here in a book about centenarians, here at CBS News, etc. PohranicniStraze (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The first and last one just confirm that he is dead. That is just WP:ROUTINE coverage and it does not prove notability. The second one is a list, and cannot be used to claim notability. » Shadowowl | talk 10:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The guideline at WP:ROUTINE states that "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, speculative coverage, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." None of the sources provided, nor the additional ones I pointed out, are in that category. The sources provided are fairly long, in-depth retrospectives of the subject's life, not at all within the purview of that policy. While you may not think simply being old makes one notable, multiple reliable sources seem to disagree; most people do not get multiple international news articles on them when they die. PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Source 1, BBC, says little more than he died + some trivia. The second source is full of sensationalism. The third source is a GRG table, which cannot be used to establish notability. The fourth source is a expansion on the first source and the best source we have. Source 5 and 7 are lists, and don't count for notability. The 6th source is another death+trivia report And again, these sources don't point out WHY this person is notable, they only report on his death. » Shadowowl | talk 16:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• They all say why he's notable. It's right in the leads: BBC - "A retired Japanese silkworm breeder believed to have been the world's oldest man has died at the age of 114" LAT - "Yukichi Chuganji, the world's oldest man, died Sunday at the age of 114" Japan Times - "Yukichi Chuganji, 114, the oldest man in the world, died of natural causes Sunday at his home" CBS - "Yukichi Chuganji, a retired silkworm breeder documented as the world's oldest man, died at his home in Japan at age 114" (emphasis mine). Just because you don't agree that extreme age is notable, doesn't mean others can't believe it is notable. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of him 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 he relates to other peoples longevity milestones or longevity milestones for various jurisdictions and the usual longevity trivia (born, had kids, lived with a daughter, died). There is nothing else to say about him. His age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on four different lists, where they are easier to view, so this article is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The article on a deceased (i.e. non-WP:BLP) man has already been nominated twice. Each time it was closed as keep. Not no consensus or near keep, i.e. a borderline keep. Not even once. I try to remain open minded but where is the change versus previous discussions? This information feels missing to me. gidonb (talk) 11:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This topic area has a LONG (we're talking at least a decade) history of off-wiki canvassing which clearly happened in the first and second AFD's so now that the 110 Club has put their socks away a much clearer discussion can happen. Consensus can also change as well. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• All except 1 keep vote were he is old so he must be notable which isn't policy. It should have been a NC close, as the keep arguments were repeating the same. » Shadowowl | talk 13:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for explaining why you nominated this once again. gidonb (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per WP:NOPAGE. After removing all the fancruft about "titleholders", there's just the barest bio info left. In most of these discussions we don't need to reach the question of whether they're notable, because even if they are they're still best presented in a list, per NOPAGE. EEng 17:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While not inherently notable by one of our professional or other people rules, Yukichi Chuganji meets the WP:GNG and should be kept a third time (!) as such. gidonb (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to appropriate list. WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB should almost certainly apply here. Half the article is either unsourced longevity trivia about his predecessors/successors or original research about how someone was older but later is no longer recognised. What's left is the absolute bare life basics of born, bred worms, had a daughter who outlived him, became oldest man and then died. Entry on a list is enough because there is never going to be more than 5 things to say about him. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:58, 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. When it comes down to sourcing that provides encyclopedic content per WP:N, I do not feel that there is enough here to justify a stand-alone article. Canadian Paul 21:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In earlier years we kept all too many articles in this field. But the oldest person on a world basis or whoever has a reasonable claim to it, with at least somewhat acceptable sources, is appropriate for a WP article. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC) .[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:GNG. Into the Rift (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable per WP:GNG. I would suggest that being, at one point in time, the world's oldest living person is an exclusive club, and one for which general readership will seek encyclopedic information. There is more verifiable information here than fits neatly within a list. The encyclopedia would therefore not be improved by its deletion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:33, 28 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.