[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kane Tanaka

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete and redirect to List of Japanese supercentenarians. Quite evidently we have a lot of opposing opinions. Much of the argument is that she is inherently notable but I see this linked to opinion not a guideline or policy. To my mind this argument is not policy based and does not count strongly against gng related arguments to delete. Claims of adequate sourcing have been well refuted. Spartaz Humbug! 21:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kane Tanaka[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Kane Tanaka (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)

Thoroughly unencyclopedic "article" on a woman whose only claim to fame is that she currently is the oldest living person. Age in and of itself is not a reason for notability. The only things we can say about her life are birth- and death-dates and -places and the "fact" that she "credits family, sleep and hope for her longevity." At best, this could be a redirect to List of Japanese supercentenarians. A WP:BOLD redirect was reverted saying that I should wait until she dies. Note that in the recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiyo Miyako I was attacked for just doing that, so this seems to be a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. No in-depth sources, does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its useful to know how she occupies her time by playing board games, and taking short walks in the nursing home's hallways? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chiyo Miyako was not merged. An attempt to merge it was deleted. There is no trace of the notable information sourced to reliable sources that previously lived in the deleted article.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the AFD was delete, not merge. Not sure why the entire thing was merged since that looks like is avoids the AFD result. CommanderLinx (talk) 09:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way I view the "I like it" argument, the whole existence of Wikipedia is naturally an "I like it" concept. Things that belong in the "I like it" category can be classified by who the speaker is, and here it's someone named Jimmy Wales. When I first saw Wikipedia in 2003, I thought it was an interesting way to improve my knowledge about the Internet because at that time it was a real surprise. A special web site that's not owned by anyone. During the first few 2 years or so after I learned about it, it was improving in several ways. These days, however, there are other wikis, for example, the Muppet Wiki, which are built similarly but differ in that they're related to a particular subject and that that subject is talked about in detail on many articles, to a greater extent than Wikipedia does. In the case of the Muppet Wiki, this subject is Sesame Street. I'm beginning to feel like Wikipedia's whole existence is a remnant from before the popularity of Wikia wikis that go into more depth than Wikipedia on different subjects. Can anyone show that Wikipedia still has pros over the Wikia wikis in any way independent of simply being an older concept?? (A fact I don't deny is that the Wikia wiki that's appropriate will depend on the article; sometimes there can be more than one correct answer. For things related to Sesame Street, this is the Muppet Wiki. For Chiyo Miyako, this is the Gerontology Wiki.) Georgia guy (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have quite a lot of guiideline to keep us out of ILIKEIT territory, all having to do with sources. And I fail to see how this historical exposé has anything to do with the current discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's explaining that I see the whole existence of Wikipedia as something to classify as ILIKEIT. I would like to propose somewhere appropriate on Wikipedia (I don't know the best page to use) information related to my long comment, and I would like to start it after this Afd discussion is done. An important thing is that I would like to know if anyone still likes Wikipedia better than the Wikia wikis in any way. Georgia guy (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting off topic, so I indeed agree that you should take this elsewhere. Just to answer your question briefly: if I need solid info about a subject, I go to WP. I'f I'm looking for some intricate trivia for some TV series, movie, game, etc, I go to Wikia (but rarely). WP has clear inclusion criteria, taking care of ILIKEIT. Like it or not, if there are good sources it generally gets included, if there are not (or they don't give any useful info beyond trivia), it doesn't get included. --Randykitty (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I took it to Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and gave it a description that reflects the fact that it's related to the WP:ILIKEIT argument. Georgia guy (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's an essay at WP:OLDAGE that makes a good point about age alone not being notable. CommanderLinx (talk) 09:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a better argument you can give than WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ITSNOTABLE? » Shadowowl | talk 14:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is the oldest living person whose age can be documented. What others are calling "longevity fluff" is really quite unique in her case. Rarely is a supercentenarian approaching the age of 116 able to concentrate for durations long enough to engage in a "board game" and almost all are chair bound and incapable of walking. So her information is relevant.TFBCT1 (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per others, being the oldest known living person in the world is indeed a claim of significance and notability. The Chiyo Miyako AfD completely went against precedent: as noted in that AfD, every oldest living person in the past 14 years (now excluding Miyako and likely to soon include Tanaka, given the anti-supercentenarian bias that seems to be evident upon reading through 51 pages of talk archives) has an article. Quite a few supercentenarians that fell short of being the oldest living person have articles too: Lucy Hannah, Tane Ikai, and even Shigechiyo Izumi and blatantly false claimant Mbah Gotho, just to name examples. It seems that people who are supporting deleting this are merely basing their arguments on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And just for the record, Tabletop123 states the case perfectly. 65HCA7 11:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: "precedent": the fact that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an argument to keep, it just means that we'll have to go patiently through those articles and separate the cruft from the really notable. "Precedent", in fact, is that just living for a long time has never been taken as proof of notability. If you know otherwise, please provide a link to the appropriate guideline. And, yes, IDONTLIKEIT: I don't like articles that fail our inclusion criteria...--Randykitty (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I believe she's notable for being a longevity record holder the world's oldest living person is no small accomplishment we have dozens of articles for the Fattest people ever and the Tallest people ever so why can't we have articles for longevity record holders? It just seems like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT from a few of the people nominating these type of articles for deletion. I've expanded the page a bit and added some new sources also I think she meets WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO #2 as A person that has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field because of her longevity record. She is also the subject of a book. Drunk in Paris (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the book: Using Google Translate, it seems to me that the "publisher" of this book is mainly a bookseller. It looks to me like a self-published book, written by her son for her 107th birthday. --Randykitty (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I absolutely agree that those bios of the fattest or tallest people are similar cases as this one. Someone who has time should go through that stuff and weed out the cruft. Arguing that growing very old makes a contribution to gerontology is about the most hilarious comment that I have yet encountered in these discussions. --Randykitty (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's also possible that she could recognized as the world's oldest living person by Guinness World Records soon if that happens she will also meet WP:ANYBIO #1 A person that has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times Drunk in Paris (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think that being listed in the Guinness Book is considered a "significant award or honor". There are too many silly things in there for that to apply. A more general point is that even if for the sake of discussion we assume that this person is notable because she got very old', we still should not have an article. As WP:N states, even if a subject is judged notable, "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page." We need to be able to say something of note, too. In the current article, even after its latest expansion, we don't find anything of note, apart from birthdate and place (and once she passes away, dead date and place). --Randykitty (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable as the world's oldest living person. — AMK152 (t • c) 14:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If people took the effort to look past sources in the English language, one would actually relatively easily find a number Japanese sources (including a lot of video material) that cover Mrs Tanaka's life. (Examples: this[1] (when she became Japan's oldest), this[2] (a video detailing Mrs Tanaka's entire life, including pictures from her earlier days), this[3] (Sept. 2016), or this[4] (Sept. 2017). In addition, as mentioned in the article itself, a book was published about her life, see here[5] ("In Good and Bad Times, 107 Years Old"), which might include more "relevant" and "justified" information (as stipulated by others) for a Wikipedia article. Lastly, it seems highly unfair to compare Mrs Tanaka to other GWR titleholders when each individual should be treated as such: individually. The title "world's oldest person" actually teaches the world how long people truly live and what the maximum reached age at any point in the last sixty years has been, thus indicating how many of the "old" people might not be telling the truth about their ages and how being the world's oldest person is a distinction within itself - why else would it be perceived a "record"?Fiskje88 (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASL7W3QJRL7WTIPE00K.html
  2. ^ https://apnews.com/27f64cb0e0034083ab5e6d154469bc39
  3. ^ https://www.tnc.co.jp/news/articles/NID2018072702346
  4. ^ http://www.kbc.co.jp/asadesu/asadesutv/detail.html?id=5861
  5. ^ http://image.honto.jp/item/1/265/0328/1953/03281953_1.png
What part of WP:ANYBIO does this article meet? And I don't think WP:GNG is met when pretty much all of the sources have to say about her is "The oldest person in Japan/world is now Kane Tanaka, of Japan, born 2 January 1903". The other policies for keeping is just hilarious. CommanderLinx (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please remember to ignore argumets to WP:NOTINTERESTING made by delete !votes. It is not up to us to judge what reliable sources found worthy of note. As several of the keep !votes point out, the article meets the guidelines of WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. The subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources. A redirect or merge has previously failed to retain notable information sourced from reliable secondary source. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How is WP:GNG and WP:BASIC met when most of the sources say "The oldest person in Japan/world is now Kane Tanaka, of Japan, born 2 January 1903"? That is not significant coverage, it's routine oldest people coverage. Even with the expansion, the "notable information" lost in a redirect is she got married, had kids and plays board games. CommanderLinx (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article fails WP:NOPAGE and contains nothing encyclopedic except her birth date, her age, country, and eventually her death date. All of that information can easily fit into a table in a list, where it is easier to view. The fact that she is old, plays board games, walks in nursing home hallways, and had some relatives die in WW2 is not notable or encyclopedic. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep now. The article is now well-written and expanded. Georgia guy (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You've already voted in this AFD above. CommanderLinx (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Striking off duplicate !vote. -The Gnome (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment to closing admin: Yet, looking at who voted here, I do not believe (m)any of them have been canvassed. And as a counter to this comment, I would like to bring to the attention that quite a number of the current "delete" votes have been cast by a group of editors who have opposed to longevity-related articles using an aggressive (and belittling) tone and a similarly aggressive manner towards any of the people opposing their point of view for quite a number of times as well as years. I realise I might be at the other end of the spectrum (as in, not opposed to a number of longevity related articles), but I do consider myself a realist; I understand it is not desirable to have articles on the 32nd or 17th oldest living person in the world. However, I also feel that, as Wikipedia editors, it is important to have a WP:NPOV. And frankly, like it or not, the world's media DO report on the oldest living people (such as Mrs Tanaka), and it does not stop there. These oldest of the oldest people also show up in scientific articles (such as [1], [2], or [3]) and it should therefore be useful to report on them in Wikipedia articles as well; these referenced scientific articles (yet many others as well) explore what it takes to grow so old and, like the media outlets, report on the "secrets" that these supercentenarians "spill" (deemed 'fancruft' by this group of opponents), which can actually help in determining the causes of longevity, a term gaining popularity in the media as well (see [4], [5], and [6], for instance). Now, I feel that the current articles being targeted (the Japanese ones) are under attack because they appear less frequently in the media, but even the oldest Japanese people are the subject of longevity-based articles, such as [7], [8], or [9]. Thus, much as Wikipedia reports on tennis players ranked a mere number 500 in the world, I feel it is also our - as in, Wikipedia's - task to report on what the media and science report about supercentenarians such as Chiyo Miyako or Kane Tanaka, even if editors do not feel it is their cup of tea. Again, as Wikipedia it is our job to report what other sources are reporting and to be WP:NPOV. Fiskje88 (talk) 08:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0112430
  2. ^ http://go.galegroup.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE%7CA229526986&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=09715916&p=AONE&sw=w
  3. ^ https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/rej.2007.0631?journalCode=rej
  4. ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlaura/2018/08/08/longevity-re-explained-its-taking-longer-for-people-to-feel-old/#3c52ea6f3e20
  5. ^ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05582-3
  6. ^ https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/30/health/life-expectancy-habits-study/index.html
  7. ^ https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-11520-2_5
  8. ^ https://academic.oup.com/biomedgerontology/article/69/4/486/547861
  9. ^ https://academic.oup.com/biomedgerontology/article/63/11/1201/759351
Comment I just had a look at the first two scientific articles that you list (in PLOS ONE and Indian Journal of Medical Research), after that I gave up. They do not even mention Tanaka, so I don't see their relevance here. In fact, no decent scientific journal will mention the names of subjects, due to ethical issues. In any case, the fact that there are scientific articles about people as a group does not make the individuals notable. There are scientific studies about Wikipedia editors, does that make us notable, too? Nobody says we shouldn't report on the oldest people as a group, I just don't believe that the individual articles contribute anything to our knowledge about supercentenarians or to WP as an encyclopedia. As a final note: why I just wrote in my "comment to closing admin" that there has been off-site canvassing, leaving it up to them to judge whether or not to take that into account, you came with what amounts to personal attacks on the editors !voting "delete" here. I really, really, REALLY don't like it to be called biased just because I have an opinion different from yours. Especially not if that opinion is backed by solid arguments. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Randykitty, first of all my apologies if you feel that I was personally attacking you. I don't believe in personal attacks and refrain from using them, so if I've given you the idea that I was doing so, then I am sorry for that. Still, I would like to clarify that I have not said that anyone was biased. Perhaps this is because my native language is not English, but what I was trying to tell was that there is a group of editors who often vote in these AFDs (whether they are in favour or against. Perhaps this should be taken into account by the closing admin. Second of all, one of the points brought up was that being a World's Oldest Person does not automatically gain notability. With my sources - and I could provide more, if preferred, I was trying to make a point that WOPs do gain notability in a variety of different sources (meaning I disagree with the aforementioned statement). Of course, there will always be differences in opinion, but in the end the closing admin will decide. As for now, I hope I have made myself clearer without offending you. :) Fiskje88 (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, apologies accepted. These debates tend to get a bit (too) heated... --Randykitty (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Newsweek description is almost certainly taken from Wikipedia at approximately here. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 02:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a well sourced article from a variety of publications. One cited paper, the San Diego Union-Tribune, is not a "local newspaper" as stated above. According to the latest audit numbers released by the Associated Press, the regional paper was ranked Number 24 in the top 25 U.S. newspapers. Newsweek, also cited in the Wiki article, is bylined by Newsweek staff writer David Brennan and was not "almost certainly taken from Wikipedia," as misstated above. I cleaned up the article and expanded it some. Easily passes WP:Basic and WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not. According to this article (first paragraph), she has family in the San Diego area. The article also says Tanaka lives in Japan. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you look comprehensively at any of the sources? The English language sources are all short obituaries of another person or a four-sentence feature article on her 113th birthday from her hometown paper. The Japanese sources are all short or don't link to an article. The coverage is all limited and routine. SportingFlyer talk 05:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See [1], also [2] is a bit short but fine, combined with worlds oldest person, well, that's fine for GNG. Contrary to what is claimed above, there will be a ton of coverage when she dies, would " when she dies she'll be irrelevant" apply to Chiyo Miyako as well? And that's not WP:CRYSTAL, that's obvious. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 07:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A "ton of coverage" when Chiyo Miyako died was insufficient to establish notability for Wikipedia purposes, and she was stated by GWR to be the "World's Oldest Person" which is not the case for Tanaka, and may in fact never be per WP:CRYSTAL. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And even is she were, being the "WOP" is not an automatic ticket to notability. --Randykitty (talk) 08:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chiyo_Miyako is a very strange AfD. If any of the Keep !voters had pointed out that she saw coverage as high as TIME, USA TODAY, etc. it might have ended differently. Lots of keep !votes without discussing the GNG was why the closer closed the way they did. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Kane Tanaka has received coverage far in excess of what would be expected for an otherwise ordinary woman in Japan. Those who argue that being the WOP (or simply very old) are WP:BLP1E is absurd. Being the world's oldest person is an attribute, not a single event. Additionally, I worry greatly that this discussion is tilted against Tanaka because of her country of origin. If the oldest person in the world lived in the Anglosphere, I highly doubt that Wikipedia editors would be making the case that she did not merit inclusion in Wikipedia.OnAcademyStreet (talk) 19:22, 13 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kane_Tanaka&oldid=1106694289"