Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ura Koyama

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 no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ura Koyama

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

Nonnotable supercentenarian without reliable sources. See WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. More as needed. JJB 23:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sufficiently notable to justify a self-standing biographical article. --DAJF (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She was Japan's oldest person, and 114 is rare even among supercentenarians. Longevitydude (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Longevitydude. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More thorough discussion: Not sure why this was relisted. This is a 4-sentence article, 1.5 sentences of which come from its only source, a 6-sentence article in a Memphis paper (2 about Ura Koyama, 1 about Minagawa, and 3 about Japanese longevity generally). The remainder is original research derived from the only external link (OHB) and probably from (and at) the GRG, both of which are not reliable secondary sources. There are no responses arguing against this clear WP:GNG failure, but only against my attempt to identify common outcomes (which should have been linked from nom, fixed now) by proposing alternate inherent-notability criteria without discussing them at that link, the appropriate place; nor has there been any attempt to improve the article, or indeed indication that that is possible. This is an ex-parrot! JJB 01:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete Half the article was about Yone Minagawa. I've deleted that part, leaving Minagowa's blue-linked name and relation to Koyama in the article's text. What remains is a source and an external link. Here's what the source says, in its entirety:

"Japan's oldest woman, 114-year-old Ura Koyama, died of pneumonia at a hospital in southern Japan, an official said Tuesday.

Koyama died Tuesday in Iizuka City, where she had been hospitalized, according to Akemi Hiromoto, a city official. Japan's oldest person is now Yone Minagawa, 112-year-old in Fukuoka, born on Jan. 4, 1893, according to the Health Ministry.

Japan ranks among nations with the world's longest life spans. In 2003, Japanese women set a new record for life expectancy, at 85.3 years, while men could expect to live 78.3 years.

Experts say a traditional fish-based, low-fat diet may be Japan's secret to long life."

Only the first two sentences are about Koyama, and they disclose nothing notable.

The external link is to a Louis Epstein's self-published web page. That's not a reliable sources as that term is defined for en.wikipedia. It's either a primary source, WP:NOR, or unverifiable WP:V. Delete, per JJB and his parrot.David in DC (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The parrot wasn't actually voting, it was just pining for the fjords. No sockparrotry here! JJB 04:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete Only source in article covers two sentences about Koyama, which is not substantial coverage. Inclusion in lists is fine. Neptune5000 (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge.::www.recordholders.org is NOT a self-published page. It's published in Germany and Louis lives in New York. That is just typical, DavidinDC, of the callous remarks that you and JJ have been making.

Also, in 2007 it was decided that supercentenarian bios that could not stand alone should be merged into the "list of" pages. Unfortunately, too many people here just think the options are keep or delete, when "merge" would be acceptable.

In reality, this article could be expanded and well-sourced, should someone take the time to do so. Having been Japan's oldest person from 2003 to 2005, that doesn't fit the definition of "one event," and multiple sources are available.

It is, of course, incumbent upon the article creators to make an article that might be able to stand alone. The article in the present state is "out of shape," but that doesn't mean that Ura Koyama doesn't deserve more than just a name in a list.Ryoung122 05:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the first three lines of text on the page in question:

"The Oldest Human Beings

These statistics were provided by Louis Epstein. Comments and corrections are welcome.

Latest update: December 3, 2010"

Something called www.recordholders.org is hosting data provided by someone named Louis Epstein, with the disclaimer that "comments and corrections are welcome." I'll assume good faith that you actually know the seperate locations of the web site provider and the statistics provider, but I'm not sure what point it proves. Louis Epstein may be well-known to you, but we need something he published in a reliable source. Not something he caused to be published on a "record holder" website. David in DC (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, David, I don't understand why Ryoung122 doesn't just take this two-week period to perform the merge himself (as if there's anything sourceable to merge at this point: what, cause of death?), or add the sources himself, or both; COI doesn't prohibit useful edits. I also don't understand why he isn't sensitive to his creation of talk chaos, such as staking out a position prior to Neptune5000 who was here earlier, which I have now corrected. JJB 20:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Digression: I really need to add R's edit here to the ArbCom case, because it simultaneously demonstrates creation of talk chaos, misreading of WP:SELFPUB, accusations against two others who do understand that policy, potentially digressive info (perhaps more on that later), explicit shifting of WP:BURDEN to "article creators" as if R, a keep proponent, has no collaborative duty to back his !vote with sources, and unsourced original research about how long the subject was the oldest national. Quite a lot in one go. Anyway, the prior paragraph lays out some good options for R if he's interested. JJB 20:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

JJ, you don't see that YOU are the problem...from intimidating Neptune5000 and deleting his article on Nyleptha Roberts, now you have convinced him that article length is the reason that Ura Koyama is not notable? Because the Nyleptha article surely was a lot longer and if it got deleted, then this must go too? That's faulty logic. If you write a long essay on your grandmother, it doesn't make her notable. What makes Ura Koyama notable is that she was RECOGNIZED by outside reliable sources as Japan's oldest person for a period of almost two years. These sources exist, and it wouldn't be that difficult for you to constructively add them instead of nominating everything for deletion. Further, if the problem is lack of sources, Wiki policies say you should first notify the article creator and give them a month to source it...not nominate it for deletion right away.

A lot of people are busy with real lives and don't have time to police your misbehavior 24 hours a day, but it should be clear to most that your editing is detrimental to Wikipedia because you don't follow policy, you attempt to make your own opinion into policy, and then you try to delete everything (tear down) rather than attempt to be constructive and "build up". There is a difference between pruning a tree and chopping down a tree. How can you say that the world's oldest person, Maud Farris-Luse, is not notable? Notability of world's oldest persons was established by media coverage long before Wikipedia existed. While coverage may be sparse for cases from the 1960s and 1970s, since circa 1986 media coverage and even book coverage of oldest persons has been substantial, continuing, and will continue.

Ryoung122 01:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please keep your multiparagraph comments all at the same indent level so I don't keep correcting them? Would you please diff when I intimidated Neptue5000, since I didn't propose Nyleptha for deletion, David did? Would you please diff when you think I argued that "Because the Nyleptha article surely was a lot longer and if it got deleted, then this must go too" (Nyleptha was deleted due to the same number of reliable sources as this article: one, a patent WP:GNG failure)? Would you please add the sources you seem to know about to the article? Do you think it's my job to know what your sources are and to add them? Would you mind linking those plural policies that say I "should" both notify and give a month to source (that would be a fun one for me to read)? Would you mind quoting a policy I don't follow and diffing where I don't follow it (after all, I've been doing that for you at ArbCom), or diffing where I try to make my own opinion into policy (rather than WikiProject guidance)? To answer your unrelated question about Maud, the fact is that before I came to this subject not all "world's first-oldest living recognized GWR-verified people" (or whatever) had articles, so they were not all notable, so deleting another one for WP:GNG failure makes no difference: frankly, it seems that to you everything is a tree trunk, because when have you ever argued clearly for a delete? Media do not create inherent notability, sorry, although you could argue that at the WP:WOP link I first gave; but, if they do, why don't you source them? JJB 03:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

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.