Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo (2nd nomination)

1569:

field of WOP - that does not mean that I agree with all of the lists and articles within the WOP field per se - thus, that I have an SPA. I also don't like me being pinned down as a GRG-biased fan. Does it not make sense that someone who follows developments within the field of longevity also edits on that subject within Knowledge (XXG)? It would make no sense for me to make edits within the subject of football; as a Dutchman, I cannot even name ONE of the players of our national football team. Moreover, I have been a member of Knowledge (XXG) for a couple of years, yet I don't see why a well-reasoned argument is immediately targeted as being part of an SPA. To get back to the topic of this AfD, I do feel that an article on a WOM is legitimate - solely for the feat that this makes her notable and existent 'in the books' forever. I am disappointed to see that my response has therefore been pinned down as another piece of 'fancruft'. In fact, drawing this parallel wider, you could even argue that if all the people with a POV who have responded here - both the (at times biased?) WOP members and the editors adamantly trimming down on WOP-articles - are left out, the only neutral - thus fair - comment so far given is by

1220:, from September 2012 - as such, they prove that more biographical information is readily available and also augment her notability. On top of that, if making it to the status of World's Oldest Woman, backed up by a GOVERNMENT agency as a source, is not notable enough in itself, then this does not bode well for other WOM/WOW/WOP candidates - whereas the notability they have received in worldwide media press coverage has surely deserved them a notable status. My point is: the feat of reaching an old age can, in itself, be considered as deserving of notability, with a Jeanne Calment being the posterchild example, of course. For Koto Okubo, as well, her name will always remain in the record books - and thus will always carry some sense of notability, albeit that biographical information on her might be more difficult to find as Knowledge (XXG) is a WESTERN-oriented organisation with most of its members not fluent in Japanese. Last of all, it is disappointing to read that members of the WOP group in this encyclopedia are stereotyped as "fancruft" or pinned in a corner with remarks as "who gives a shit?" To me, this comes across as downright condescending as well as serious POV-pushing and is thus in violation with 1723:, to CBS News and from The Telegraph to Japan Daily Press. To justify the retention of Mrs. Okubo's article, it is not only worth mentioning that Knowledge (XXG) is not a hardcopy encyclopedia - thus not limited to space - but also that notability is not determined by the length of an article. Mrs. Okubo's article could still be expanded on by adding material from other sources that might be located in the future. To draw the discussion even wider... Knowledge (XXG) has articles on every player who once participated in any major league sports, even if they played just one game - and this is in the Knowledge (XXG) guidelines! Moreover, there are entire Knowledge (XXG) articles on draws of virtually all Grand Slams there have ever been in the Open Era of tennis, and statistics on various tennis players - the latter clearly violating the Knowledge (XXG) policy of 1727:. Surely, if these articles are justified, an additional policy of people having attained WOP/WOM/WOW status can be proposed. Now don't get me wrong; I see the need to trim down on trivial articles on supercentenarians as I realise that Knowledge (XXG) is a(n) (scientific) encyclopedia instead of a "fanclub" - I understand that not everyone should have an article about him/her, I am not delusional - yet I do think that a status as WOP/WOM/WOW (a title which will always be in the history books) justifies having an article about that person, even if it is not the longest of articles. Lastly, there is not a single WOP/WOM/WOW titleholder from the last thirty years without an own article; then why should Mrs. Okubo be the lone exception to that? It seems to me that some of the voters here are doing it out of 1305:. Even monarchs who reigned for a short time are notable enough for their own article. But this isn't about the first AFD or bringing the article back afterwards...it's about whether the upgrade in status to the Guinness world's oldest woman titleholder brought enough recognition to meet the Knowledge (XXG) "notability" standard. I would say "yes". It's been "yes" for everyone else since at least the 1980s. Why should this case be different? The article does contain more than just her birth/death dates and her country of residence. The fact that one other user in this discussion "doesn't give a shit" about anything else is irrelevant. -- 1439:, I am curious as to why you added SPA tags to various "Keep" votes on this Afd, my vote included. If you actually took the time to look at my contributions (of which there are over 500) you will see that they are by no means exclusively related to longevity article, in fact, for a long time after joining Knowledge (XXG), my edits were almost entirely related to Snooker articles. I note that you have also added the SPA tag to the votes of 1629:

when I feel compelled to, and when I see unfair attempts to delete perfectly decent articles related to a topic I am interested in, I feel compelled to have my say and defend them. I certainly don't think my contribution here should be dismissed or be undermined simply because I'm not on here as regularly as you think is acceptable, and regardless of what you want to call my account, it is certainly not a single-purpose account.

2755:

Ricky81682, and CommanderLinx among others) have vigorously and voraciously tried to trim down on and delete WOP articles before. If the purpose of this AfD is to get a neutral outcome, then it should be taken into account that many 'merge' votes are not neutral either. It seems to me that the blatant negative tone used by some of these editors might have even scared off neutral, uninvolved parties from voting in this AfD.

1014:

a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Knowledge (XXG), as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic.

1551:. Is there anything that can even be said about this person that would not belong in the article on Japanese Centenarians anyway? Looking at the article now, the only important piece of information I see that would not go there is her cause of death. If no sources exist to expand this article beyond a rehash of content that exists elsewhere, I see no need for an article. 499:. Sources tell us almost nothing of interest that isn't already available there. Remove the unsourced statements and you're pretty much just left with a name, age and country and a statement that she was the oldest woman for a month. What little bio information that can be salvaged can go in the people section unless more information comes up. 2851:. Perhaps somebody out there (for example) has a WP:V source for how this woman lived, what she ate, whether she was demented and when (if so), or something about the ages of her ancestor deaths, etc., which will later aid somebody in a hypothesis about the causes of these unusual things. Keeping this a stub is pretty harmless, as she's dead. 1451:, and yes, it's true that these users do make edits to longevity articles, but they DO NOT exclusively edit longevity pages, something which you have implied when you added the SPA tags. All of these users voted to "Keep" the article, and i'm sure that by adding the SPA tags, you hope to further your cause to get this article on 2838:

as a stub-like bio. Though I don't feel strongly about a merge, if all the content here is merged into some other article (list of oldest people in the world at the time of death). So long as no information is lost, what's the difference in where it is? Lumpers and splitters should both be happy with

2702:

Then her notability was for less than a month, for that is as long as she held the title. It was only an "intrinsic part" of her existence for that time. Even then, at 115 was she even involved in the process? Was she awake, aware, cogent? Possess faculties? The article states absolutely nothing

1590:

I am shocked to see my account labelled as SPA in this discussion, who made this decision and on what basis? I joined Knowledge (XXG) originally to create a page for a local sociologist who died and who I believed was notable enough for a page on this site. But don't take my word for it, look at the

1081:

Koto Okubo (大久保琴 Ōkubo Koto?, 24 December 1897 – 12 January 2013) was a Japanese supercentenarian who, at the time of her death aged 115 years and 19 days, was recognized as the oldest woman in the world and the second oldest living person behind Jiroemon Kimura. At the time of her death, Okubo was

1024:

four things about the subject: when she was born, where she lived, when she died, and what she died of. The rest is GRG fancruft like "The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare did not announce her name officially (only her residence and age were released). Furthermore, at that time, her record was

1013:

to merit an article if . This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. ... Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on

350:

The prior discussion was merely that she was the oldest living woman in all of Asia and that wasn't sufficient. The fact that people stubbornly ignored it doesn't mean it isn't a fair discussion. Also, it's entirely possible for all forty of those articles to be merged together (I consider this akin

1628:

Absolutely absurd reasoning. Is 3 months absence 'long inactivity'? I was absent for 6 months in 2014 and my first edit upon returning was to an English MP. Is that edit suspicious? Returning after long inactivity to 'merely' make one edit on a politician? I have things to do, I edit and contribute

1087:

Koto Okubo became the oldest woman from Japan and Asia after the death of Chiyono Hasegawa on 2 December 2011. The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare did not announce her name officially (only her residence and age were released). Furthermore, at that time, her record was not yet identified and

1076:

be merged; I said it should be merged because it should be merged. And, actually, there's nothing else in the article beyond the four things I mentioned and the usual longevity fancruft (e.g. "she was the second-oldest right-handed person south of the Mason-Dixon Line other than people in Asia with

827:

round of discussion after discussion after discussion in different places while we ignore what's actually discussed so we can badger everyone else to death and rally the troops in support of it." An article about the oldest woman in Japan at that time (in Asia in fact) was discussed, supposed to be

2724:

No, her longevity was an intrinsic part of her as a person and still is (the fact that she lived to 115 has not changed even after her death), and although she only held the title for a month, she still remains as a former titleholder. Note that I'm addressing a wider issue here, which is that the

1776:

First of all: who is 'we'? I didn't know I was tangled up in an "us versus them" discussion and I do not appreciate the tone that comes forth from "we don't care"; it comes across as belittling and 'everybody sides with me', whereas what I am trying to show here is that there are also arguments in

1568:

I have noticed that many of the contributors here have been pinned down as people solely editing in the field of WOP (thus, stereotyped as "trying to edit-war their GRG-biased POV"). I would like to say that although I can see the point of view of others - I have made few contributions outside the

1697:

is irrelevant for determining if she should have a stand-alone article, since there's no Knowledge (XXG) policy on the oldest anything being automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards. Thus we default to the general notability guidelines, which require widespread non-trivial coverage.

730:

Even if the previous AFD hadn't been ignored - if the article had been merged in September 2012 then un-merged (i.e revert to the pre-redirect version) and possibly expanded the article when she became the world's oldest person, we would be in the same place today as we actually are: Discussing

620:

until 2014. It is not unlikely that editors who have strong feelings on this issue have or will participate in this discussion. This may be one of those situations where policy and precedent should clearly trump the "!vote count," particularly if it is close or participation is low. Getting a

1379:

is exactly the opposite of what I said in my stricken remarks. The proper procedure would be for any editor (other than the person who originally closed the discussion) to re-close it, subject to any administrator re-opening it. Given the nature of this particular "early close" and the almost

862:

There is a huge difference between "oldest woman in Japan" and "oldest person on the planet" (and a not-as-big difference between "oldest in Asia" vs. "oldest on the planet") in terms of how much press they will get (i.e. how likely they meet Knowledge (XXG)'s notability criteria). Like a high

1262:

This woman was the oldest woman in the world. Not only that but she is one of the few people to have have reached age 115 of all time and also one of the very few women to have held the title of 'oldest woman' in the world and not also 'oldest person'. I believe this article to be of use and

867:

certainly going to have significant and widespread press coverage in reliable sources. In short, it is unwise to automatically assume people will have the same "keep/merge/delete" recommendation for someone who has never been the oldest person in the world as they would for someone who has.

2754:

I have noted that, although the "striking" has ended now, the people posting here had been divided in either WOP-members or non-WOP-members. I would like to point out that this division does not represent reality; many of the people part of the non-WOP-members (EEng, DerbyNZ, Canadian Paul,

2780:

could apply, except that there is no way to ahve an article about the "event" of her becomign oldest living woman. Therefore I feel this article is justified by policy, and i don't see the delete argumetns as having much value. Granted this is a stub, there is nothing wrong with accurate,

1213:

Mrs. Okubo was the world's oldest woman for a period of time and was recognised as such by Guinness World Records, among others. Her name was revealed in September 2012 by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare and, as a consequence, reports about her, including biographical

1384:

applies - the editor who re-opened the discussion's decision should stand since the end result - the discussion being re-opened - would be the same. Please do not re-close the discussion before the 7 days are up, as it will just be a waste of time as I or another editor will call in an

1045:

Just because an article "could" be merged doesn't mean it should. There is more information in this article than just the details you've mentioned (four of them that you mentioned, by the way, not three). Just because you "don't give a shit" doesn't mean no one else does. --

655:. A good decision then, a good decision now. The article doesn't even say anything about this woman's longevity, other than its span. And it has no other hint of notability. (To those who complain that articles are awarded indiscriminately to other ancients, 1595:

when just 26% of all edits I have made are related to the alleged 'single purpose'? I believe this labelling to be an attempt to undermine perfectly good points raised by users who have had ANY past association with anything to do with WOP articles.

894:

on the planet, which is not the same. However, given the large media coverage of her since 2012 and especially during her tenure as the oldest woman on the planet, I see no question that this person meets Knowledge (XXG)'s notability requirements.

1720:, "ignificant, independent coverage in reliable sources is required"; Koto Okubo qualifies for this, as her status as the World's Oldest Woman garnered her attention and she was covered in worldwide media press ranging from The Huffington Post, see 684:

The previous AFD closed before she became the world's oldest person. The huge amount of press coverage she received in early 2013 (and late 2012?) when she became the world's oldest person and when she died makes the results of that AFD obsolete.

1860:

as notability is solely attributable to age. There is no content in the article apart from references to her longevity, and can easily be incorporated there. A stand alone article is not warranted for the single event of the fact that she lived.

1698:

Since she chose to remain anonymous for the most part, the only coverage of her that exists are mentions of her status among the world's oldest, which can be included easily on one of the many longevity-related tables/lists on Knowledge (XXG).

1459:

for example, they have edited hundreds of articles, many of which have NOTHING to do with longevity, and yet you still added the SPA tag to their vote. If you could elaborate as to why you did this, i'd appreciate hearing your explaination.

1351:

contentious and the discussion should remain open until an admin closes it. Unless this discussion qualifies for a "speedy close" now or in the future, it is unlikely that any admin will close it before the normal 7-day discussion period

1166:

Not everyone can become the oldest person in the world. We need to distinguish those, whose are scientifically verified by recognized authorities, from those, who only claim to be the oldest. Mrs. Koto Okubo's age was verified by both

2911:

That's an original argument, don't think I've ever seen that one before. Can you perhaps tell us on what policy or guideline you base your assertion that having been cited by The Telegraph implies that an article should be kept?

1492:

Well, if you looked closer, you may see that whilst a number of my edits are related to longevity articles, I also edit pages on other topics, in fact, just yesterday I created another Snooker tournament article, namely the

1881:

The anonymous user with the IP-address "166..." is not a member of the GRG or 110 Club and has a reputation of making up death dates. So please do not believe that what this person says represents the GRG's point of view.

1757:

such coverage. And as already noted, even if a subject is notable, that doesn't mean the best way to cover him/her/it is in a standalone article. As to "why should Mrs. Okubo be the lone exception?", the answer is

961:

which can later be changed to a regular "redirect" when the merge is complete. This will make sure that the "failure to implement the results of the AFD" that we saw with the previous AFD doesn't happen again.

186: 2680:

guideline is refers to people who, say, were eyewitnesses to a notable event but were not significantly involved in it, or only had "15 minutes of fame". That clearly doesn't apply in this situation. --

1591:

facts: I have made 153 edits on Knowledge (XXG) since I joined on 27 January 2011, 41 of which have been related to WOP articles, that's 26.7%... Can anyone in all seriousness claim that my account is a

85: 2519:

in WOP articles in the past. While I am not a "listed member" or a recent active participant in that project, listing me in the "non-WOP members" in this context is potentially deceptive.

617: 55:. I find a rough consensus to merge, but it appears that the target already has a section about her, so I'll redirect instead. Any additional useful content may be merged from the history. 1147:

She was the oldest living woman in the world for almost a month, and the oldest living woman in Japan for over a year, these are surely good enough reasons to justify a seperate article.

765:

in support of notability: Her death was widely reported in multiple languages (I found English and Spanish right off the bat) and her death and others has been the subject of satire

2810:

It is not true that information about Mrs. Okubo has been based on one single source; she also received media attention in, for instance, September 2012, when her name was released.

1478:

editing in a given area, just few edits outside an area. And someone, like yourself, who suddenly reappears after two years to edit almost entirely in one area counts as well.

836:

it's the time we need to have new, separate discussions so that we can again argue about someone who lives to XX number of years needs separate biographies. The AFD discussions

602:. Nothing to justify a stand-alone article. Citations are obituaries and membership of a list. Might justify an article with appropriate citations, but there are, so for, none. 139: 1749:"I do feel that Koto Okubo's status as a WOW qualified her for "widespread non-trivial coverage" -- you fundamentally misunderstand notability. We don't care whether something 1093:

The name of Okubo was finally reported by the Japanese press on 14 September 2012, and on the same day, Okubo was verified and added to the GRG list and Guinness World Records.

716:. It's not like anyone waited until she became the oldest woman to re-start, they just ignored the discussion and now create a new justification to again keep this article. -- 2847:. The only argument I can see for leaving this a stubbish stand-alone bio, is that, in a sense stand-alone articles, even stubs (especially stubs) invite further contribution 268:. I don't think there's a consensus that having being the oldest women ever at any given time is sufficient notability for an article so I want to see where we should go with 2655:

Notable only for one event (becoming very old) and not enough coverage to write an article beyond "she still reads the newspaper without glasses and likes to sing" cruft. --

863:

school with a football team (and probably even more so than a high school), a person who is recognized by the Guinness Book of World Records as the world's oldest person is

1813:

being the latest) clearly demonstrates that "those who understand guidelines" is a definition that does not hold true; there is more than one way to interpret a guideline.

1301:

General consensus seems to be that world's oldest women and world's oldest man titleholders are notable enough to warrant their own article. Notability due to a title is

1224:. As far as I am concerned, the decision in this AfD nomination should be made on the basis of objectivity - "fancruft" and "who gives a shit?" don't point towards that. 1522:'s comment of 02:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC). If I am wrong, please re-format it so it is clear who you are replying to. EEng, I also indented your comment for clarity. 662:.) After this stub was previously turned into a redirect, there were vigorous efforts to ignore this and re-create the article, wasting others' time. This second time, 369: 180: 1777:

favour of keeping the article. You can simply agree with those or not and agree to disagree and there is no need to call out on me for trying to defend an article.

1673: 1827:

In principle, yes, but one wonders if the interpretation of someone such as yourself, with 142 edits total (all in this one subject area), would be very reliable.

403: 3009:

My God! Calm, reasoned discussion results in one editor changing another editor's mind at AfD! Alert the media! Let's you and I hold a joint press conference!

2676:

Living to an extremely old age is NOT one event, it's an intrinsic part of the person and her status as a former world's oldest woman will remain forever. The

146: 80: 1347:

Regardless of the merits of the close (or lack thereof), when an editor in good standing contests a non-admin closure, it means that the non-admin closure is

931:

is the content at the list page (and even that, the nursing home and son comment isn't actually sourced) but that's more than was removed in January 2013. --

1614:

As already mentioned, someone (such as yourself) who suddenly appears after long inactivity, merely to comment on AfDs in a certain area, certainly counts.

1791:"We" is "we WP editors", nothing to do with us vs. them, though it could be "those who understand guidelines and policy vs. those who don't", I suppose. 2418: 2349: 2299: 832:

a soul in support; they just ignored everyone and edit warred until everyone else gave up. Now that it's the oldest women and some merge votes come in,

2250: 2103: 2703:

about her life, only that she took longer to achieve the final act of living than other people. That is not notability, it's not even an event.

788:

on whether "having your death widely-reported due merely to old age" or "being in newspapers around the world merely due to old age" satisfies

2201: 1956: 3040: 2054: 2412: 2343: 2293: 2152: 2005: 546: 521: 467: 448: 1908: 1331: 1289: 1250: 1201: 525: 471: 2993: 2939: 2619:. There's not enough info to support an article, and that will never change now. We could only pad it out with unsourced trivia. -- 2244: 1857: 1669: 1414: 1197: 646: 599: 496: 308: 51: 17: 2097: 1327: 1025:

not yet identified and recognized by the Gerontology Research Group." Who gives a shit? She should be an entry in an list article.

784:, the near-uniformity of other top-40-longest-lived people having their own long-standing articles strongly argues in favor of a 781: 658: 2195: 1950: 1246: 796:, and it strongly argues against using the "one event" and "other stuff exists" as reasons to delete articles one at a time. 112: 107: 3076: 3054: 3018: 3004: 2987: 2969: 2921: 2899: 2868: 2822: 2805: 2787: 2764: 2738: 2715: 2690: 2664: 2647: 2628: 2609: 2593: 2537: 2490: 1926: 1891: 1873: 1836: 1822: 1800: 1786: 1771: 1740: 1721: 1709: 1685: 1652: 1638: 1623: 1605: 1582: 1560: 1539: 1497:

page. So your statement that I only make a few edits outside of longevity articles is a false accusations. But there's also

1487: 1469: 1426: 1403: 1342: 1314: 1272: 1233: 1184: 1156: 1137: 1112: 1055: 1034: 987: 940: 913: 857: 814: 749: 725: 703: 675: 639: 608: 580: 560: 508: 483: 429: 395: 360: 341: 299: 281: 64: 1128:

per the above supporters of merging. If there's nothing else to say about her, there's not enough for a separate article.

351:

to the former articles we had on every fiction character which became merged into individual characters of show pages). --

2848: 2531: 2436: 2367: 2048: 1676:

is getting step-by-step closer to being disbanded by the community for exactly the kind of activity going on in this AfD.

1533: 1397: 1365: 981: 907: 880: 808: 743: 697: 633: 335: 116: 1381: 1376: 201: 2146: 1999: 1904: 1285: 424: 390: 3097: 1717:

I do feel that Koto Okubo's status as a WOW qualified her for "widespread non-trivial coverage". As has been stated in

168: 40: 2454: 2385: 2317: 99: 1693:

for the same reasons that I nominated this for deletion the first time. The fact that she was World's Oldest Person

616:

Topics related to super-centenarians have been contentious in the past. Longevity-related articles were subject to

2268: 1172: 60: 256:, it was that there was nothing about her other than her name and birth date. Now that she has been determined to 2796:

Nearly identical "sources" all obviously reprinting a press release or other upstream source, count as just one.

2305: 2121: 1417:. Insufficient independent notability. Also recommend protection of the redirect to prevent future recreation. -- 1474:

SPAs are routinely identified in AfD discussions. That's primarily what the template is for. It doesn't require

964:

Note - I'm still strongly in favor of keeping, but I am also strongly in favor of following processes except in

3044: 2624: 2256: 418: 384: 2729:

guideline has been frequently misapplied to try and delete articles of people notable for their longevity. --

766: 2406: 2337: 2287: 2109: 1805:

I think the myriad of WP guidelines that have been posted in this AfD supporting a 'keep' for this article (

1704: 731:

whether this person is notable given the publicity she enjoyed before and after the AFD of September 2013.

550: 517: 504: 463: 452: 269: 162: 1098:

Okubo lived in a nursing home in Kawasaki, Kanagawa with her son. She died of pneumonia on 12 January 2013.

542: 444: 217:

This was listed before for deletion in September 2012 with a consensus to merge. It was ignored repeatedly

2238: 2219: 1974: 1718: 1193: 1180: 1168: 1759: 3093: 2734: 2686: 2401: 2332: 2091: 2072: 1556: 1494: 1323: 1310: 1133: 1051: 953: 459: 295: 56: 36: 2844: 2726: 2677: 793: 777: 158: 1218: 3051: 2917: 2660: 2589: 2486: 2207: 2170: 2023: 1962: 1501:, who makes lots of edits outside the topic of longevity, yet you also added an SPA tag to his vote. 1455:

deleted, but the fact is that you have falsely accused users of having single-purpose accounts. Take

936: 853: 721: 603: 557: 480: 356: 277: 3063:"It was verified by the GRG which is the definition of WP:V" is the definition of what's wrong with 2638:

as she is notable for a single event and there isn't sufficient coverage for a stand-alone article.

1175:. She is definitely notable and her article is an important source of valid information. Sincerely. 1020:

This is a classic situation where such discretion should be exercised. The article says essentially

2620: 2060: 264:

issue and the contents should again be merged to the Japanese supercentarian article and hopefully

194: 2951: 841: 840:

discussions about their notability. Otherwise, you're free to propose an adjustment to point 2 of

208: 2998: 2963: 2785: 2760: 2643: 2282: 2189: 2158: 2011: 1944: 1818: 1782: 1736: 1699: 1578: 1242: 1229: 513: 500: 2777: 1728: 1302: 261: 2430: 2361: 948:

If this closes as "merge" I strongly recommend that the closing admin replace the content with

2527: 2233: 2042: 1529: 1506: 1465: 1393: 1361: 1215: 1189: 1176: 1152: 977: 903: 876: 804: 739: 693: 629: 331: 290:. She was the world's oldest woman for a month, and this is part of the history of longevity. 29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

3092:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

1810: 1221: 311:

have articles and I doubt many of them are notable for anything other than their longevity.

35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

2730: 2705: 2682: 2605: 2140: 2086: 1993: 1922: 1900: 1887: 1863: 1681: 1634: 1601: 1552: 1440: 1319: 1306: 1281: 1268: 1129: 1047: 412: 378: 291: 3064: 2943: 2773: 1932: 1806: 1724: 965: 789: 773: 769: 2913: 2656: 2585: 2482: 932: 890:

I mis-spoke when I implied she was the "oldest person on the planet" - she was the oldest

849: 717: 671: 352: 314: 273: 103: 2840: 1573:. Perhaps a decision for this AfD should only be based on the truly neutral posts here? 174: 3072: 3014: 2983: 2877: 2818: 2801: 2442: 2373: 1832: 1796: 1767: 1648: 1619: 1483: 1422: 1108: 1030: 576: 3036: 1753:

nontrivial coverage (whatever that means, come to think of it); we care whether there

998: 2865: 2862: 2857: 2852: 2782: 2756: 2639: 2184: 1939: 1814: 1778: 1732: 1574: 1444: 1238: 1225: 2776:

is satisfied. I added several English-language sources, and could have added more.

2520: 2037: 1570: 1523: 1513: 1502: 1461: 1386: 1354: 1214:

information, began to emerge/surface immediately - as evidenced by these reports,

1148: 970: 896: 869: 797: 732: 686: 622: 324: 2960:

Until there is a list that can incorporate the person in prose, it should be kept.

2813:

I was referring to the "several English-language sources" that DES said he added.

133: 2601: 2578: 2475: 2135: 1988: 1918: 1896: 1883: 1677: 1630: 1597: 1498: 1456: 1448: 1277: 1264: 407: 373: 844:

or a million other angles to make 'staying alive for a very long time' worth a

1452: 667: 95: 70: 3068: 3010: 2979: 2814: 2797: 1828: 1792: 1763: 1644: 1615: 1519: 1479: 1436: 1418: 1104: 1026: 572: 1643:

153-41=112 edits is "few edits", period -- no matter what the topic area.

1518:

I formatted your comment on the assumption you were directly replying to

1377:

Knowledge (XXG):Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions

959:

followed by a soft-redirect and a link to the most recent prior edit,

828:

deleted and then edit warred to stay on. No one bothered to actually

252:

solely that she wasn't even the world's oldest woman (she was then

621:

second admin's advice may be helpful if the result isn't clear.

3086:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

2876:

The article is cited by reliable sources such as The Telegraph.

1082:

one of only 29 people verified to have lived to the age of 115.

1380:

certainty that an administrator would quickly re-open it,

653:

The result was merge to List of Japanese supercentenarians

538:

Editor is not a WOP and only exists to disrupt WOP work."

2581: 2478: 2460: 2448: 2424: 2391: 2379: 2355: 2323: 2311: 2274: 2262: 2225: 2213: 2176: 2164: 2127: 2115: 2078: 2066: 2029: 2017: 1980: 1968: 928: 265: 253: 245: 241: 237: 233: 229: 225: 222: 220: 218: 129: 125: 121: 3035:

it was verified by the GRG which is the definition of

712:

It was decided and closed prior to that fact and then

193: 1341:A few edits before this one, an editor completed a 207: 1077:no home telephones"). Here it is in its entirety: 319:please consider withdrawing this AFD so it can be 86:Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo (2nd nomination) 43:). No further edits should be made to this page. 3100:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2954:discourages permanent stubs, merging would be 2772:There is plenty of coverage out there, so the 768:. If that doesn't meet the qualifications of 307:no-brainer, almost all of the top 40 names in 1088:recognized by the Gerontology Research Group. 776:incorrectly. To those raising the issue of 8: 1072:I didn't say it should be merged because it 402:Note: This debate has been included in the 368:Note: This debate has been included in the 1935:members or WOP-SPA editors !voting here==== 370:list of People-related deletion discussions 1375:: I was wrong. The procedure outlined at 823:Oh, another round of the typical "we need 540: 442: 404:list of Japan-related deletion discussions 401: 367: 260:the world's oldest woman, that's still a 1385:administrator and it will be re-opened. 792:or whether those individuals fall under 556:Block evading IP sock of 166.176.57.66. 479:Block evading IP sock of 166.176.57.66. 248:. The issue at the prior discussion was 2843:. I just don't like deleting info, per 618:ARBCOM standard discretionary sanctions 78: 2978:Sorry, what would be lost in a merge? 571:What, only Italians can get involved? 441:and ban OP from further disruption. 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 2849:in the same manner as a redlink does 1674:WP:WikiProject World's Oldest People 77: 2994:List of Japanese supercentenarians 2940:List of Japanese supercentenarians 2281:* (only member not to vote !keep) 1858:List of Japanese supercentenarians 1670:List of Japanese supercentenarians 1415:List of Japanese supercentenarians 659:Knowledge (XXG):Other stuff exists 647:List of Japanese supercentenarians 600:List of Japanese supercentenarians 497:List of Japanese supercentenarians 309:List of the verified oldest people 52:List of Japanese supercentenarians 24: 1345:of this AFD. It was contested. 81:Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo 1509:) 02:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 1: 3047:) 17:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC) 2584:. See also the talk page. -- 2481:. See also the talk page. -- 614:Comments to the closing admin 553:) 03:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 455:) 02:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1371:23:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 886:05:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 3077:21:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC) 3055:22:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC) 3019:21:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC) 3005:18:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC) 2988:06:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC) 2970:03:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC) 2922:08:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC) 2900:00:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC) 2869:00:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC) 2823:17:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC) 2806:17:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 2788:16:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 2765:16:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 2739:20:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 2716:18:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 2691:18:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 2665:15:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 2648:14:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 2629:14:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 2610:14:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 2594:09:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 2538:23:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC) 2491:09:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 1927:14:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 1892:14:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 1874:13:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 1837:17:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC) 1823:16:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC) 1801:17:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 1787:16:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 1772:00:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 1741:18:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC) 1710:08:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC) 1686:13:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 1653:17:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC) 1639:14:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 1624:13:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 1606:12:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 1583:07:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 1561:04:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 1540:03:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 1488:02:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 1470:01:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 1427:23:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1404:01:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 1315:21:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1273:19:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1234:18:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1185:16:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1157:15:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1138:14:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1113:16:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC) 1056:21:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1035:13:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 988:05:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 941:04:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 914:22:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 858:04:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 815:04:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 750:05:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 726:04:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 704:04:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 676:04:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 651:To quote the previous AfD, 640:04:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 609:04:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 581:03:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 561:10:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 509:03:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 484:10:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 430:02:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 396:02:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 361:04:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 342:02:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 300:23:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC) 282:22:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC) 65:23:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC) 3117: 1917:striking all of the below 1173:Gerontology Research Group 266:not just deleted outright 3089:Please do not modify it. 1373:Correction and mea culpa 254:the oldest woman in Asia 32:Please do not modify it. 2497:====non-WOP members==== 1751:qualifies a subject for 1593:Single-purpose Account 1169:Guinness World Records 968:that don't apply here. 772:then I'm interpreting 270:Template:Oldest people 76:AfDs for this article: 1909:few or no other edits 1495:1998 Scottish Masters 1332:few or no other edits 1290:few or no other edits 1251:few or no other edits 1202:few or no other edits 782:WP:Other stuff exists 526:few or no other edits 472:few or no other edits 321:speedy-closed as keep 2781:well-sourced stubs. 2577:Listing provided by 2474:Listing provided by 1911:outside this topic. 1672:The GRG project aka 1411:Merge & Redirect 1343:WP:Non-admin closure 1334:outside this topic. 1292:outside this topic. 1253:outside this topic. 1204:outside this topic. 664:protect the redirect 528:outside this topic. 2956:a very lossy option 1382:WP:Ignore all rules 1339:Administrative note 649:and redirect there. 474:outside this topic. 2992:I correct myself: 786:general discussion 3057: 3052:Black Kite (talk) 2612: 2560:* DerbyCountyinNZ 2536: 2535: 1929: 1912: 1538: 1537: 1402: 1401: 1370: 1369: 1335: 1293: 1254: 1205: 986: 985: 969: 912: 911: 885: 884: 813: 812: 748: 747: 702: 701: 638: 637: 563: 558:Black Kite (talk) 554: 545:comment added by 539: 532: 529: 487: 486: 481:Black Kite (talk) 475: 456: 447:comment added by 432: 428: 398: 394: 340: 339: 3108: 3091: 3049: 3001: 2999: 2966: 2964: 2896: 2893: 2890: 2887: 2884: 2881: 2860: 2855: 2712: 2710: 2599: 2525: 2524: 2465: 2464: 2419:deleted contribs 2396: 2395: 2350:deleted contribs 2327: 2300:deleted contribs 2278: 2251:deleted contribs 2229: 2202:deleted contribs 2180: 2153:deleted contribs 2131: 2104:deleted contribs 2082: 2055:deleted contribs 2033: 2006:deleted contribs 1984: 1957:deleted contribs 1916: 1894: 1870: 1868: 1707: 1702: 1695:in and of itself 1527: 1517: 1510: 1391: 1390: 1359: 1358: 1349:in and of itself 1317: 1275: 1236: 1187: 975: 974: 963: 958: 952: 927:For comparison, 901: 900: 874: 873: 802: 801: 737: 736: 691: 690: 627: 626: 606: 537: 534: 511: 489: 478: 477: 457: 410: 376: 329: 328: 318: 212: 211: 197: 149: 137: 119: 34: 3116: 3115: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3098:deletion review 3087: 3050:Block evasion. 2894: 2891: 2888: 2885: 2882: 2879: 2858: 2853: 2708: 2706: 2503:* Canadian Paul 2404: 2400: 2335: 2331: 2285: 2236: 2187: 2138: 2089: 2040: 1991: 1942: 1866: 1864: 1705: 1700: 1511: 1023: 956: 950: 605:DerbyCountyinNZ 604: 312: 154: 145: 110: 94: 91: 74: 48:The result was 41:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3114: 3112: 3103: 3102: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3041:166.170.50.204 3028: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3021: 2973: 2972: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2903: 2902: 2871: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2791: 2790: 2767: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2719: 2718: 2694: 2693: 2668: 2667: 2650: 2632: 2631: 2621:A D Monroe III 2597: 2596: 2494: 2493: 1914: 1913: 1876: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1744: 1743: 1712: 1688: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1609: 1608: 1585: 1563: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1430: 1429: 1407: 1406: 1336: 1295: 1294: 1256: 1255: 1207: 1206: 1160: 1159: 1141: 1140: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1095: 1090: 1084: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1038: 1037: 1021: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1003: 1002: 991: 990: 943: 921: 920: 919: 918: 917: 916: 818: 817: 759: 758: 757: 756: 755: 754: 753: 752: 707: 706: 679: 678: 642: 611: 588: 587: 586: 585: 584: 583: 531: 530: 434: 433: 399: 365: 364: 363: 345: 344: 302: 215: 214: 151: 90: 89: 88: 83: 75: 73: 68: 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3113: 3101: 3099: 3095: 3090: 3084: 3083: 3078: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3056: 3053: 3048: 3046: 3042: 3038: 3034: 3020: 3016: 3012: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3003: 3002: 3000:Esquivalience 2996:can take it. 2995: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2985: 2981: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2971: 2968: 2967: 2965:Esquivalience 2961: 2957: 2953: 2949: 2945: 2941: 2937: 2934: 2933: 2929: 2928: 2923: 2919: 2915: 2910: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2901: 2898: 2897: 2875: 2872: 2870: 2867: 2864: 2861: 2856: 2850: 2846: 2842: 2837: 2834: 2833: 2824: 2820: 2816: 2812: 2811: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2803: 2799: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2789: 2786: 2784: 2779: 2775: 2771: 2768: 2766: 2762: 2758: 2753: 2750: 2749: 2740: 2736: 2732: 2728: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2717: 2714: 2713: 2701: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2692: 2688: 2684: 2679: 2675: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2666: 2662: 2658: 2654: 2651: 2649: 2645: 2641: 2637: 2634: 2633: 2630: 2626: 2622: 2618: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2611: 2607: 2603: 2600:end striking 2595: 2591: 2587: 2583: 2580: 2576: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2569:* ScrapIronIV 2567: 2566:* Georgia guy 2564: 2561: 2558: 2555: 2554:* Ricky81682 2552: 2551:* Egsan Bacon 2549: 2546: 2543: 2540: 2539: 2533: 2529: 2522: 2518: 2513: 2510: 2507: 2506:* Someguy1221 2504: 2501: 2498: 2492: 2488: 2484: 2480: 2477: 2473: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2462: 2459: 2456: 2453: 2450: 2447: 2444: 2441: 2438: 2435: 2432: 2429: 2426: 2423: 2420: 2417: 2414: 2411: 2408: 2403: 2402:166.170.48.75 2397: 2393: 2390: 2387: 2384: 2381: 2378: 2375: 2372: 2369: 2366: 2363: 2360: 2357: 2354: 2351: 2348: 2345: 2342: 2339: 2334: 2333:166.176.58.18 2328: 2325: 2322: 2319: 2316: 2313: 2310: 2307: 2304: 2301: 2298: 2295: 2292: 2289: 2284: 2283:CommanderLinx 2279: 2276: 2273: 2270: 2267: 2264: 2261: 2258: 2255: 2252: 2249: 2246: 2243: 2240: 2235: 2230: 2227: 2224: 2221: 2218: 2215: 2212: 2209: 2206: 2203: 2200: 2197: 2194: 2191: 2186: 2181: 2178: 2175: 2172: 2169: 2166: 2163: 2160: 2157: 2154: 2151: 2148: 2145: 2142: 2137: 2132: 2129: 2126: 2123: 2120: 2117: 2114: 2111: 2108: 2105: 2102: 2099: 2096: 2093: 2088: 2083: 2080: 2077: 2074: 2071: 2068: 2065: 2062: 2059: 2056: 2053: 2050: 2047: 2044: 2039: 2034: 2031: 2028: 2025: 2022: 2019: 2016: 2013: 2010: 2007: 2004: 2001: 1998: 1995: 1990: 1985: 1982: 1979: 1976: 1973: 1970: 1967: 1964: 1961: 1958: 1955: 1952: 1949: 1946: 1941: 1936: 1934: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1910: 1906: 1902: 1898: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1880: 1879:Clarification 1877: 1875: 1872: 1871: 1859: 1855: 1852: 1851: 1838: 1834: 1830: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1812: 1808: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1769: 1765: 1761: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1742: 1738: 1734: 1730: 1726: 1722: 1719: 1716: 1713: 1711: 1708: 1703: 1696: 1692: 1689: 1687: 1683: 1679: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1664: 1663: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1636: 1632: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1621: 1617: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1594: 1589: 1586: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1572: 1567: 1564: 1562: 1558: 1554: 1550: 1547: 1541: 1535: 1531: 1525: 1521: 1515: 1508: 1504: 1500: 1496: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1438: 1435: 1432: 1431: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1409: 1408: 1405: 1399: 1395: 1388: 1383: 1378: 1374: 1367: 1363: 1356: 1353: 1350: 1344: 1340: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1303:not temporary 1300: 1297: 1296: 1291: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1261: 1258: 1257: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1216: 1212: 1209: 1208: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1186: 1182: 1178: 1174: 1170: 1165: 1162: 1161: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1143: 1142: 1139: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1124: 1123: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1103: 1099: 1096: 1094: 1091: 1089: 1085: 1083: 1079: 1078: 1075: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1019: 1015: 1010: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1000: 996: 993: 992: 989: 983: 979: 972: 967: 960: 955: 947: 944: 942: 938: 934: 930: 926: 923: 922: 915: 909: 905: 898: 893: 889: 882: 878: 871: 866: 861: 860: 859: 855: 851: 847: 843: 839: 835: 831: 826: 822: 821: 820: 819: 816: 810: 806: 799: 795: 791: 787: 783: 779: 775: 771: 767: 764: 761: 760: 751: 745: 741: 734: 729: 728: 727: 723: 719: 715: 711: 710: 709: 708: 705: 699: 695: 688: 683: 682: 681: 680: 677: 673: 669: 665: 661: 660: 654: 650: 648: 643: 641: 635: 631: 624: 619: 615: 612: 610: 607: 601: 597: 593: 590: 589: 582: 578: 574: 570: 569: 568: 567: 566: 565: 564: 562: 559: 555: 552: 548: 547:166.176.58.18 544: 527: 523: 519: 515: 514:CommanderLinx 510: 506: 502: 501:CommanderLinx 498: 494: 491: 490: 488: 485: 482: 476: 473: 469: 465: 461: 460:166.176.58.18 454: 450: 449:166.170.48.75 446: 440: 431: 426: 423: 420: 417: 414: 409: 405: 400: 397: 392: 389: 386: 383: 380: 375: 371: 366: 362: 358: 354: 349: 348: 347: 346: 343: 337: 333: 326: 322: 316: 310: 306: 303: 301: 297: 293: 289: 286: 285: 284: 283: 279: 275: 271: 267: 263: 259: 255: 251: 247: 243: 239: 235: 231: 227: 223: 221: 219: 210: 206: 203: 200: 196: 192: 188: 185: 182: 179: 176: 173: 170: 167: 164: 160: 157: 156:Find sources: 152: 148: 144: 141: 135: 131: 127: 123: 118: 114: 109: 105: 101: 97: 93: 92: 87: 84: 82: 79: 72: 69: 67: 66: 62: 58: 54: 53: 44: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 3088: 3085: 3032: 3030: 3029: 2997: 2962: 2959: 2955: 2947: 2935: 2931: 2930: 2908: 2878: 2873: 2835: 2769: 2751: 2704: 2699: 2673: 2652: 2635: 2616: 2598: 2574: 2568: 2565: 2562: 2559: 2556: 2553: 2550: 2547: 2544: 2541: 2516: 2515:I have been 2514: 2511: 2508: 2505: 2502: 2499: 2496: 2495: 2471: 2457: 2451: 2445: 2439: 2433: 2427: 2421: 2415: 2409: 2398: 2388: 2382: 2376: 2370: 2364: 2358: 2352: 2346: 2340: 2329: 2320: 2314: 2308: 2302: 2296: 2290: 2280: 2271: 2265: 2259: 2253: 2247: 2241: 2234:White Eaglet 2231: 2222: 2216: 2210: 2204: 2198: 2192: 2182: 2173: 2167: 2161: 2155: 2149: 2143: 2133: 2124: 2118: 2112: 2106: 2100: 2094: 2084: 2075: 2069: 2063: 2057: 2051: 2045: 2035: 2026: 2020: 2014: 2008: 2002: 1996: 1986: 1977: 1971: 1965: 1959: 1953: 1947: 1937: 1930: 1915: 1878: 1862: 1853: 1760:WP:OTHERCRAP 1754: 1750: 1714: 1694: 1690: 1665: 1592: 1587: 1565: 1548: 1475: 1433: 1410: 1372: 1348: 1346: 1338: 1298: 1259: 1210: 1190:White Eaglet 1177:White Eaglet 1163: 1144: 1125: 1097: 1092: 1086: 1080: 1073: 1012: 1008: 994: 954:Afd-merge to 949: 945: 924: 891: 887: 864: 848:article. -- 845: 837: 833: 829: 824: 785: 762: 713: 663: 656: 652: 644: 613: 595: 591: 541:— Preceding 535: 533: 492: 443:— Preceding 438: 436: 435: 421: 415: 387: 381: 320: 304: 287: 257: 249: 216: 204: 198: 190: 183: 177: 171: 165: 155: 142: 50:redirect to 49: 47: 31: 28: 2845:WP:NOTPAPER 2731:Ollie231213 2727:WP:ONEEVENT 2683:Ollie231213 2678:WP:ONEEVENT 2579:User:Jytdog 2563:* Edward321 2476:User:Jytdog 2087:Ollie231213 1907:) has made 1755:actually is 1553:Someguy1221 1441:Ollie231213 1330:) has made 1320:Ollie231213 1307:Ollie231213 1288:) has made 1249:) has made 1200:) has made 1164:Strong Keep 1130:Egsan Bacon 1048:Ollie231213 1009:A topic is 794:WP:ONEEVENT 778:WP:ONEEVENT 524:) has made 470:) has made 292:Georgia guy 181:free images 2958:lossless. 2914:Randykitty 2657:Randykitty 2586:Ricky81682 2548:* Oscar248 2483:Ricky81682 2455:block user 2425:filter log 2386:block user 2356:filter log 2318:block user 2312:filter log 2269:block user 2263:filter log 2220:block user 2214:filter log 2171:block user 2165:filter log 2122:block user 2116:filter log 2073:block user 2067:filter log 2024:block user 2018:filter log 1975:block user 1969:filter log 1453:Koto Okubo 1263:interest. 966:rare cases 933:Ricky81682 850:Ricky81682 718:Ricky81682 353:Ricky81682 315:Ricky81682 274:Ricky81682 96:Koto Okubo 71:Koto Okubo 3094:talk page 2952:WP:NOPAGE 2461:block log 2392:block log 2324:block log 2275:block log 2226:block log 2177:block log 2128:block log 2079:block log 2030:block log 1981:block log 1476:exclusive 842:WP:ANYBIO 645:Merge to 258:have been 246:restarted 242:restarted 238:restarted 234:restarted 230:restarted 226:protected 57:T. Canens 37:talk page 3096:or in a 2948:although 2942:: Meets 2778:WP:BLP1E 2757:Fiskje88 2640:Ca2james 2545:* JJMC89 2532:contribs 2517:involved 2413:contribs 2344:contribs 2294:contribs 2245:contribs 2196:contribs 2185:Fiskje88 2147:contribs 2098:contribs 2049:contribs 2000:contribs 1951:contribs 1940:Fiskje88 1905:contribs 1815:Fiskje88 1779:Fiskje88 1733:Fiskje88 1729:WP:Point 1701:Canadian 1575:Fiskje88 1549:Question 1534:contribs 1445:Fiskje88 1398:contribs 1366:contribs 1328:contribs 1286:contribs 1247:contribs 1239:Fiskje88 1226:Fiskje88 1198:contribs 1011:presumed 982:contribs 908:contribs 881:contribs 846:separate 830:convince 809:contribs 744:contribs 698:contribs 634:contribs 543:unsigned 522:contribs 468:contribs 445:unsigned 336:contribs 262:WP:BLP1E 140:View log 39:or in a 2909:Comment 2752:Comment 2700:Comment 2674:Comment 2575:Comment 2557:* Hoary 2521:davidwr 2512:Davidwr 2472:Comment 2038:Bodgey5 1811:WP:ARTN 1715:Comment 1588:Comment 1571:davidwr 1566:Comment 1524:davidwr 1514:Bodgey5 1503:Bodgey5 1462:Bodgey5 1434:Comment 1387:davidwr 1355:davidwr 1222:WP:NPOV 1149:Bodgey5 971:davidwr 946:Comment 925:Comment 897:davidwr 870:davidwr 825:another 798:davidwr 763:Comment 733:davidwr 714:ignored 687:davidwr 623:davidwr 325:davidwr 187:WP refs 175:scholar 113:protect 108:history 3065:WP:WOP 2944:WP:GNG 2774:WP:GNG 2602:Jytdog 2542:* DAJF 2500:* EEng 2136:JKSD93 1989:JKSD93 1933:WP:WOP 1919:Jytdog 1897:930310 1884:930310 1807:WP:GNG 1725:WP:NOR 1678:Jytdog 1631:JKSD93 1598:JKSD93 1499:JKSD93 1457:JKSD93 1449:JKSD93 1447:, and 1278:JKSD93 1265:JKSD93 888:Update 865:almost 790:WP:GNG 774:WP:GNG 770:WP:GNG 592:Delete 408:JJMC89 374:JJMC89 159:Google 117:delete 2936:Merge 2866:arris 2841:WP:SS 2711:pIron 2653:Merge 2636:Merge 2617:Merge 2431:WHOIS 2362:WHOIS 1869:pIron 1854:Merge 1691:Merge 1666:Merge 1352:ends. 1126:Merge 1074:could 1022:three 1001:says: 997:Like 995:Merge 892:woman 668:Hoary 666:. -- 596:Merge 493:Merge 224:then 202:JSTOR 163:books 147:Stats 134:views 126:watch 122:links 16:< 3073:talk 3069:EEng 3045:talk 3037:WP:V 3033:Keep 3015:talk 3011:EEng 2984:talk 2980:EEng 2950:but 2932:Keep 2918:talk 2874:Keep 2836:Keep 2819:talk 2815:EEng 2802:talk 2798:EEng 2770:Keep 2761:talk 2735:talk 2687:talk 2661:talk 2644:talk 2625:talk 2606:talk 2590:talk 2582:here 2528:talk 2487:talk 2479:here 2449:http 2443:RBLs 2437:RDNS 2407:talk 2380:http 2374:RBLs 2368:RDNS 2338:talk 2306:logs 2288:talk 2257:logs 2239:talk 2208:logs 2190:talk 2159:logs 2141:talk 2110:logs 2092:talk 2061:logs 2043:talk 2012:logs 1994:talk 1963:logs 1945:talk 1931:==== 1923:talk 1901:talk 1888:talk 1833:talk 1829:EEng 1819:talk 1809:and 1797:talk 1793:EEng 1783:talk 1768:talk 1764:EEng 1737:talk 1706:Paul 1682:talk 1649:talk 1645:EEng 1635:talk 1620:talk 1616:EEng 1602:talk 1579:talk 1557:talk 1530:talk 1520:EEng 1507:talk 1484:talk 1480:EEng 1466:talk 1437:EEng 1423:talk 1419:DAJF 1394:talk 1362:talk 1324:talk 1311:talk 1299:Keep 1282:talk 1269:talk 1260:Keep 1243:talk 1230:talk 1217:and 1211:Keep 1194:talk 1181:talk 1171:and 1153:talk 1145:Keep 1134:talk 1109:talk 1105:EEng 1052:talk 1031:talk 1027:EEng 999:WP:N 978:talk 937:talk 929:this 904:talk 877:talk 854:talk 805:talk 780:and 740:talk 722:talk 694:talk 672:talk 657:see 630:talk 577:talk 573:EEng 551:talk 518:talk 505:talk 464:talk 453:talk 439:Keep 406:. — 372:. — 357:talk 332:talk 305:Keep 296:talk 288:Keep 278:talk 244:and 228:and 195:FENS 169:news 130:logs 104:talk 100:edit 61:talk 2938:to 2783:DES 2707:Scr 2530:)/( 1865:Scr 1856:to 1668:to 1532:)/( 1413:to 1396:)/( 1364:)/( 980:)/( 906:)/( 879:)/( 838:are 834:now 807:)/( 742:)/( 696:)/( 632:)/( 598:to 594:or 536::: 495:to 334:)/( 323:. 250:not 209:TWL 138:– ( 3075:) 3067:. 3039:. 3031:* 3017:) 2986:) 2946:; 2920:) 2912:-- 2821:) 2804:) 2763:) 2737:) 2689:) 2663:) 2646:) 2627:) 2608:) 2592:) 2509:* 2489:) 2399:* 2330:* 2232:* 2183:* 2134:* 2085:* 2036:* 1987:* 1938:* 1925:) 1903:• 1895:— 1890:) 1835:) 1821:) 1799:) 1785:) 1770:) 1762:. 1739:) 1731:. 1684:) 1651:) 1637:) 1622:) 1604:) 1581:) 1559:) 1486:) 1468:) 1443:, 1425:) 1326:• 1318:— 1313:) 1284:• 1276:— 1271:) 1245:• 1237:— 1232:) 1196:• 1188:— 1183:) 1155:) 1136:) 1111:) 1054:) 1033:) 957:}} 951:{{ 939:) 856:) 724:) 674:) 579:) 520:• 512:— 507:) 466:• 458:— 359:) 298:) 280:) 272:. 240:, 236:, 232:, 189:) 132:| 128:| 124:| 120:| 115:| 111:| 106:| 102:| 63:) 3071:( 3043:( 3013:( 2982:( 2916:( 2895:L 2892:r 2889:a 2886:c 2883:s 2880:O 2863:H 2859:B 2854:S 2817:( 2800:( 2759:( 2733:( 2709:★ 2685:( 2659:( 2642:( 2623:( 2604:( 2588:( 2534:) 2526:( 2523:/ 2485:( 2470:' 2463:) 2458:· 2452:· 2446:· 2440:· 2434:· 2428:· 2422:· 2416:· 2410:· 2405:( 2394:) 2389:· 2383:· 2377:· 2371:· 2365:· 2359:· 2353:· 2347:· 2341:· 2336:( 2326:) 2321:· 2315:· 2309:· 2303:· 2297:· 2291:· 2286:( 2277:) 2272:· 2266:· 2260:· 2254:· 2248:· 2242:· 2237:( 2228:) 2223:· 2217:· 2211:· 2205:· 2199:· 2193:· 2188:( 2179:) 2174:· 2168:· 2162:· 2156:· 2150:· 2144:· 2139:( 2130:) 2125:· 2119:· 2113:· 2107:· 2101:· 2095:· 2090:( 2081:) 2076:· 2070:· 2064:· 2058:· 2052:· 2046:· 2041:( 2032:) 2027:· 2021:· 2015:· 2009:· 2003:· 1997:· 1992:( 1983:) 1978:· 1972:· 1966:· 1960:· 1954:· 1948:· 1943:( 1921:( 1899:( 1886:( 1867:★ 1831:( 1817:( 1795:( 1781:( 1766:( 1735:( 1680:( 1647:( 1633:( 1618:( 1600:( 1577:( 1555:( 1536:) 1528:( 1526:/ 1516:: 1512:@ 1505:( 1482:( 1464:( 1421:( 1400:) 1392:( 1389:/ 1368:) 1360:( 1357:/ 1322:( 1309:( 1280:( 1267:( 1241:( 1228:( 1192:( 1179:( 1151:( 1132:( 1107:( 1050:( 1029:( 984:) 976:( 973:/ 935:( 910:) 902:( 899:/ 883:) 875:( 872:/ 852:( 811:) 803:( 800:/ 746:) 738:( 735:/ 720:( 700:) 692:( 689:/ 670:( 636:) 628:( 625:/ 575:( 549:( 516:( 503:( 462:( 451:( 437:* 427:) 425:C 422:· 419:E 416:· 413:T 411:( 393:) 391:C 388:· 385:E 382:· 379:T 377:( 355:( 338:) 330:( 327:/ 317:: 313:@ 294:( 276:( 213:) 205:· 199:· 191:· 184:· 178:· 172:· 166:· 161:( 153:( 150:) 143:· 136:) 98:( 59:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo (2nd nomination) - Knowledge (XXG)

Index