996:
interested in footballers, but I understand their articles serve a purpose. I also don't understand the nominator's point that "Knowledge is not a directory of longest living people" - agreed 100%, but it's also not a directory of footballers, Members of
Parliament, ice hockey players, beauty pageant winners, Olympic cyclists etc. If you're going to apply the same standards to all of these categories, then you're going to have a busy week.
619:. Specifically, noting that reliable sources cover her prolonged life with coverage on her 114th birthday, and so on. These constitute as separate events in her longevity, which is notable within itself. Therefore, I am officially reverting back to my original vote, and believe that the article should be kept. I apologize for all of the redaction; I'm just happy that I found that essay, which helped to clarify my assumptions regarding
730:? I don't see the consensus for that from the other discussions. This feels like a complete one-off and I can't figure out why. And no, I'm not citing the prior one to reject this article per se; I'm saying that all the comments here that "Oldest woman ever = automatic keep" are quite odd and differ from all the prior discussions about this category of people. Most of
711:
Notice that EVERY other person in this discussion - including editors uninvolved in this project - can clearly see that 1. Being the oldest person in the world is a notable accolade, and 2. The coverage in reliable sources is significant, and therefore this article should be kept. Citing a previous
463:
By this point, Canadian Paul should be laughed out of
Knowledge for attempting to nominate someone who's the 6th oldest person in history. Anyone this desperate to prove a point needs to take some time off, as they have successfully embarrassed themselves to the point that the only thing they could
995:
A woman who lives to be 117 is notable, end of story. I think the problem with many of the recent longevity based Afd's (of which there have been a lot, I can hardly keep up) is that the nominator's are not interested and cannot understand how anyone else could be interested in this topic. I'm not
913:
notable. Furthermore, it's not true to say that AfD's in the past have deleted articles like this. World's oldest people titleholders are typically considered notable enough for an article. (P.s. I know I've posted a similar message elsewhere in response to a similar comment, but not everyone will
734:
is not written and as I noted, the depth of coverage here is largely obituaries which basically is routine coverage for most people. Not everyone who has a obituary is notable enough for inclusion so I'd need something more. All these AFDs are going wild with a ton of keeps or a ton of deletes (or
349:
Delete the world oldest person article?...It is incorrect. also, this article has been created with the other 30 languages of
Knowledge. This person is well-known, reason for deleting the article does not have even one. You're why hated so much longevity article? I do not understand the meaning of
577:
are stand-alone lists of items that aren't associated with or significantly contribute to a
Knowledge topic or subject, such as a list of employee names and their phone number extensions under the organization's article, a syllabus or agenda of items for a concert, programming guides for a radio
908:
die at a young age, and that's why she's notable. Being extremely aged isn't one event any more than being a golfer is; it's an intrinsic part of the person. The amount of coverage that the world's oldest people receive in the news is evidence that the oldest people in the world
945:, for instance) have reported on this woman, most notably during the time when she was the world's oldest person - as the three previously cited sources all confirm. As such, she has gained enough notability and media coverage to be considered encyclopedia-proof.
681:, simply being the oldest woman at one time was not sufficient for notability (also this isn't the Academy Awards, these "winners" are based solely on various sources alleging that she actually was the oldest woman alive at that time) because as discussed at
843:, 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
472:
for deletion. This is not up for debate, this is literally the worst AfD I have ever witnessed, an embarrassment to the process. This is what happens when AfD decisions are twisted to the point that no one bothers to try anymore.
827:'s relevancy with this nomination. In short, I agree with his argument and I am changing my vote. Taking into account the notability claimed in the article, as well as Knowledge's policies, I believe that this person does pass
712:
AfD to argue that this person isn't notable and that this one should be deleted is ridiculous (Koto Okubo wasn't even the world's oldest person and was unusual in that she didn't get covered widely in the media). --
749:
I'd just like to note for the record that 8 out of the 14 references listed at the bottom of the article were written before the subject had died. So to describe the coverage as "largely obituaries" is innacurate.
981:- Article is about a person who has garnered widespread media coverage. Former oldest living person, and the fifth-oldest person ever. Clearly notable. Nominator does not provide a policy-based reason to delete.
509:, Please be mindful of your comments towards other editors and keep to a respectful and constructive form of criticism. Not only does your statement not make sense (Canadian Paul did not create nor vote on this
173:
682:
678:
474:
485:
126:
167:
478:
272:
735:
just my delete and a ton of keeps) for some reason and we haven't seen to have figured out the middle ground yet and to me, "Oldest person ever" isn't it. --
242:
937:
900:
I'm not sure I understand your logic. It's like saying "If Tiger Woods wasn't a golfer, he wouldn't be notable, so he shouldn't have an article". The
726:
Except it was different when it was Okubo as the oldest woman. Is the rule the oldest person, man or woman at that time? Therefore only the people at
867:
test". Instead of each long-living person having their own article, they could instead be mentioned in an article regarding long-living persons.
133:
1071:
372:
940:
332:; her life is notable for its length, as testified by the sourcing. Saying "longevity is not a reason" strikes me as a category error.
1033:
446:
1075:
1022:
971:
450:
376:
506:
421:
404:
99:
94:
17:
967:
103:
188:
1018:
155:
86:
612:
1117:
64:
40:
410:
408:
149:
1067:
1054:
808:
775:
No specific policy cited to justify deletion. Subject is notable enough by virtue of the depth of coverage.
731:
727:
412:
368:
355:
337:
1037:
755:
665:
1113:
919:
717:
442:
429:
406:
364:
351:
229:
145:
36:
1098:
1058:
1041:
1005:
987:
954:
923:
876:
813:
786:
759:
744:
721:
702:
669:
652:
631:
598:
529:
497:
433:
395:
359:
341:
324:
294:
264:
233:
215:
68:
414:
740:
698:
493:
60:
798:
does not confer notability per any policy, but the extent of coverage in this case seems to satisfy
204:
Longevity is not a reason for inclusion here. Knowledge is not a directory of longest living people
643:
A notable individual that has been cited in mutiple reliable sources, as the world's oldest person.
316:
286:
256:
195:
181:
847:, AfD's in the past have come to a consensus to delete articles of people just like this one. Per
1086:
1063:
1050:
963:
950:
803:
518:
333:
210:
1094:
751:
686:
661:
648:
514:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1112:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1014:
1001:
915:
836:
781:
713:
554:
546:
465:
438:
425:
391:
225:
90:
852:
844:
832:
820:
736:
694:
550:
489:
161:
469:
306:
276:
246:
55:
982:
959:
946:
848:
828:
587:
566:
562:
558:
542:
510:
417:
205:
1090:
856:
840:
824:
644:
620:
616:
689:
coverage that would be expected rather than examples of notability as required by
120:
1032:= article about a old supercentenarian. No reason to delete. Per other users. --
1010:
997:
868:
864:
799:
776:
690:
624:
591:
583:
541:- Obviously notable person with significant sources and coverage to easily pass
522:
387:
82:
74:
936:
A myriad of sources from different parts of the world (such as Great-Britain
943:
660:
Oshwah says it best. Perhaps it is time for this to be closed early.
403:. Obviously. Nominator has proposed a number of articles be deleted (
623:
and articles regarding people who lived an above-average life span.
553:(and I didn't even have to dig). The nominator of this ticket cited
1106:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
839:
if the person won an award?), but this article also falls under
685:, obituary sources which they all are better to be considered
521:, and doesn't accomplish what this process is supposed to do.
1089:
exists that the "oldest person from X large nation" is kept.
578:
station, yellow pages or white pages - those are examples of
683:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Bob
Taggart (2nd nomination)
679:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo (2nd nomination)
224:. She was the oldest woman in the world part of her life.
611:. However, after taking additional time to find and read
561:. There are no directories in this article whatsoever.
116:
112:
108:
180:
416:), including well sourced articles that clearly pass
1049:- She is the oldest Japanese person in history. --
586:criterion and does not qualify for deletion under
464:do that is more embarrassing would be nominating
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1120:). No further edits should be made to this page.
557:as the main reason for listing this article for
615:, I believe that the person does not fall into
194:
8:
819:Delete - I took some extra time to evaluate
305:: She is world record holder, so notable. --
271:Note: This debate has been included in the
241:Note: This debate has been included in the
273:list of People-related deletion discussions
565:- I highly recommend that you brush up on
270:
243:list of Japan-related deletion discussions
240:
881:Changing back to Keep - See explanation
507:2602:306:8381:7390:C091:2760:198B:C94
475:2602:306:8381:7390:C091:2760:198B:C94
7:
607:I redacted this vote and changed to
488:as a block evading sockpuppet. --
24:
386:: world record holder. period.--
794:Being the world's oldest person
855:, this person is notable. But,
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
481:) 23:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
1:
823:argument with precedence and
569:and what the definition of a
1099:00:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
1059:11:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
1042:03:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
1006:22:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
988:18:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
955:16:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
924:23:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
877:23:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
814:21:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
787:20:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
760:00:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
745:04:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
722:22:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
703:09:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
670:00:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
653:00:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
632:13:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
599:23:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
530:01:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
498:09:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
434:22:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
420:, for no reason other than "
396:16:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
360:10:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
342:04:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
325:00:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
295:00:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
265:00:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
234:23:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
216:21:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
69:00:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
613:Knowledge:What_is_one_event
1137:
582:. This article meets all
1109:Please do not modify it.
914:have seen that one). --
32:Please do not modify it.
859:is meant to be a check
1087:longstanding tradition
732:Template:Oldest people
728:Template:Oldest people
1076:few or no other edits
1023:few or no other edits
972:few or no other edits
863:people who pass the "
451:few or no other edits
377:few or no other edits
1078:outside this topic.
1025:outside this topic.
974:outside this topic.
486:indefinitely blocked
453:outside this topic.
422:I just don't like it
379:outside this topic.
1079:
1026:
975:
500:
454:
380:
320:
297:
290:
267:
260:
59:
56:non-admin closure
1128:
1111:
1061:
1008:
985:
957:
872:
811:
806:
796:in and of itself
677:As discussed at
628:
595:
526:
484:Editor has been
483:
466:Shigechiyo Izumi
436:
362:
322:
319:
313:
310:
292:
289:
283:
280:
262:
259:
253:
250:
213:
208:
199:
198:
184:
136:
124:
106:
53:
34:
1136:
1135:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1118:deletion review
1107:
983:
870:
809:
804:
785:
626:
593:
524:
317:
311:
308:
287:
281:
278:
257:
251:
248:
211:
206:
141:
132:
97:
81:
78:
61:DavidLeighEllis
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1134:
1132:
1123:
1122:
1102:
1101:
1080:
1044:
1027:
990:
976:
930:
929:
928:
927:
886:
885:
816:
789:
779:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
706:
705:
672:
655:
637:
636:
635:
634:
602:
601:
535:
534:
533:
532:
470:Jeanne Calment
456:
455:
398:
381:
350:your action.--
344:
327:
299:
298:
268:
237:
236:
202:
201:
138:
77:
72:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1133:
1121:
1119:
1115:
1110:
1104:
1103:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1064:Nixus Minimax
1060:
1056:
1052:
1051:Nixus Minimax
1048:
1045:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1007:
1003:
999:
994:
991:
989:
986:
980:
977:
973:
969:
965:
961:
956:
952:
948:
944:
941:
938:
935:
932:
931:
926:
925:
921:
917:
912:
907:
903:
898:
897:
895:
894:
892:
891:
889:
888:
884:
882:
879:
878:
874:
873:
866:
862:
858:
854:
850:
846:
842:
838:
834:
830:
826:
822:
817:
815:
812:
807:
801:
797:
793:
790:
788:
783:
778:
774:
771:
770:
761:
757:
753:
748:
747:
746:
742:
738:
733:
729:
725:
724:
723:
719:
715:
710:
709:
708:
707:
704:
700:
696:
692:
688:
684:
680:
676:
673:
671:
667:
663:
659:
656:
654:
650:
646:
642:
639:
638:
633:
630:
629:
622:
618:
614:
610:
606:
605:
604:
603:
600:
597:
596:
589:
585:
581:
576:
572:
568:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
544:
540:
537:
536:
531:
528:
527:
520:
516:
512:
508:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
499:
495:
491:
487:
482:
480:
476:
471:
467:
462:
452:
448:
444:
440:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
415:
413:
411:
409:
407:
405:
402:
399:
397:
393:
389:
385:
382:
378:
374:
370:
366:
365:Inception2010
361:
357:
353:
352:Inception2010
348:
345:
343:
339:
335:
334:Imaginatorium
331:
328:
326:
323:
321:
315:
314:
304:
301:
300:
296:
293:
291:
285:
284:
274:
269:
266:
263:
261:
255:
254:
244:
239:
238:
235:
231:
227:
223:
220:
219:
218:
217:
214:
209:
197:
193:
190:
187:
183:
179:
175:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
147:
144:
143:Find sources:
139:
135:
131:
128:
122:
118:
114:
110:
105:
101:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
79:
76:
73:
71:
70:
66:
62:
57:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1108:
1105:
1082:
1046:
1034:74.130.133.1
1029:
992:
978:
942:, and Japan
933:
910:
905:
904:is that she
901:
899:
896:
893:
890:
887:
880:
875:
869:
860:
818:
795:
791:
772:
674:
657:
640:
625:
608:
592:
579:
574:
570:
538:
523:
513:), but it's
460:
458:
457:
400:
383:
346:
329:
318:
307:
302:
288:
277:
258:
247:
221:
203:
191:
185:
177:
170:
164:
158:
152:
142:
129:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1074:) has made
1021:) has made
970:) has made
916:Ollie231213
902:whole point
714:Ollie231213
580:directories
575:Directories
449:) has made
439:Ollie231213
426:Ollie231213
401:Strong Keep
375:) has made
347:Strong Keep
226:Georgia guy
168:free images
83:Misao Okawa
75:Misao Okawa
845:Ricky81682
821:Ricky81682
752:AtHomeIn神戸
737:Ricky81682
695:Ricky81682
687:WP:ROUTINE
662:AtHomeIn神戸
584:notability
515:disruptive
490:Ricky81682
1114:talk page
979:Snow Keep
939:, Brazil
837:WP:ANYBIO
835:(perhaps
571:directory
555:WP:NOTDIR
547:WP:ANYBIO
519:demeaning
37:talk page
1116:or in a
1072:contribs
1019:contribs
984:Chessrat
968:contribs
960:Fiskje88
947:Fiskje88
871:~Oshwah~
853:WP:BASIC
833:WP:BASIC
805:Canadian
627:~Oshwah~
594:~Oshwah~
563:Timtrent
551:WP:BASIC
525:~Oshwah~
447:contribs
373:contribs
127:View log
39:or in a
1091:Bearian
865:notable
861:against
645:Bodgey5
174:WP refs
162:scholar
100:protect
95:history
1011:JKSD93
998:JKSD93
906:didn't
849:WP:GNG
829:WP:GNG
777:clpo13
675:Delete
609:Delete
567:WP:NOT
559:WP:AFD
543:WP:GNG
424:". --
418:WP:GNG
388:BabbaQ
212:Faddle
207:Fiddle
146:Google
104:delete
857:WP:1E
841:WP:1E
825:WP:1E
693:. --
621:WP:1E
617:WP:1E
309:Human
279:Human
249:Human
189:JSTOR
150:books
134:Stats
121:views
113:watch
109:links
16:<
1095:talk
1083:Keep
1068:talk
1055:talk
1047:Keep
1038:talk
1030:Keep
1015:talk
1002:talk
993:Keep
964:talk
951:talk
934:Keep
920:talk
851:and
831:and
810:Paul
800:WP:N
792:Keep
782:talk
773:Keep
756:talk
741:talk
718:talk
699:talk
691:WP:N
666:talk
658:Keep
649:talk
641:Keep
573:is.
549:and
539:Keep
517:and
494:talk
479:talk
461:Keep
443:talk
430:talk
392:talk
384:Keep
369:talk
356:talk
338:talk
330:Keep
312:3015
303:Keep
282:3015
252:3015
230:talk
222:Keep
182:FENS
156:news
117:logs
91:talk
87:edit
65:talk
50:keep
911:are
588:AFD
511:AFD
468:or
196:TWL
125:– (
52:.
1097:)
1085:-
1070:•
1062:—
1057:)
1040:)
1017:•
1009:—
1004:)
966:•
958:—
953:)
922:)
802:.
758:)
743:)
720:)
701:)
668:)
651:)
590:.
545:,
496:)
473:--
445:•
437:—
432:)
394:)
371:•
363:—
358:)
340:)
275:.
245:.
232:)
176:)
119:|
115:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
67:)
1093:(
1066:(
1053:(
1036:(
1013:(
1000:(
962:(
949:(
918:(
883:.
784:)
780:(
754:(
739:(
716:(
697:(
664:(
647:(
492:(
477:(
459:*
441:(
428:(
390:(
367:(
354:(
336:(
228:(
200:)
192:·
186:·
178:·
171:·
165:·
159:·
153:·
148:(
140:(
137:)
130:·
123:)
85:(
63:(
58:)
54:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.