Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiyo Miyako

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. It's rare that I think that I need to overrule a numerical majority (15:6 per the autocount) on the basis of strength of argument, but this is such a case. The "keep" opinions are almost all variations on the theme of "anybody who is among the oldest persons is automatically notable". Howewer, our WP:BIO inclusion guidelines do not provide for an automatic assumption of notability in such cases, as they do e.g. for certain politicians. A search of the guideline talk page archives indicates that there has been repeated discussion about adding such a presumption of notability, but no proposal has ever obtained consensus. That being the case, the very solid community-wide consensus about who is (or not) presumed to be notable by virtue of some personal characteristic cannot be overruled by local consensus at this AfD (see WP:CONLEVEL), and I need to discount almost all "keep" opinions as being at odds with established guidelines. I advise those who wanted to keep this article to start a WP:RFC about whether consensus has changed and certain very old people should now presumed to be notable. Sandstein 07:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chiyo Miyako[edit]

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

Chiyo Miyako (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 for a few months this year she was the oldest living person. The only things we can say about her life are birth- and death-dates and -places and the "fact" that she "credited eating eel, drinking red wine, and never smoking for her longevity." At best, this could be a redirect to List of the verified oldest people. Delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Being notable for longevity alone is notable if she's at least 115. Georgia guy (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would greatly appreciate if you could point me to the guideline or policy that says this. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such guideline. Numerous articles on supercentenarians have been deleted precisely because there is NO inherent notability for being extremely old. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Link to some of those deletion discussions that closed as delete, please? Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 22:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's just one, there are more: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Verona Johnston. --Randykitty (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_World%27s_Oldest_People/Article_alerts/Archive. Have a look there. Heaps of deletes/redirects. CommanderLinx (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Being the oldest person in the world is indeed notable, & the article appears to have the requisite number of citations to support notability. Regarding WP:1EVENT, "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." In this instance it is more appropriate that the article be written about the person, since writing about only her tenure as the world's oldest person would be absurd. Peaceray (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close - This isn't going to be deleted, she is notable as a former oldest person in the world so at the very least a redirect would be in order (No need to drag this out for a week). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Randykitty: Why didn't you just open a redirect discussion over at Talk:Chiyo Miyako? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because such discussion usually only attract the hobbyists that create this kind of fancruft anyway. This will get more attention and, I am sure, more serious !votes than "this is notable!" So I am very much opposed to any attempt to not let this run the full 7 days. --Randykitty (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how that would sway a closing editor's argument for a discussion if they were going by opinion weights. Do you see a biased issue with the rfc (request for comment) process? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: 1EVENT applies very much here. The one event is becoming very old. Something that just happens to someone, regardless of whether she likes red wine or not. And on top of that, we just have nothing of interest to say as this person apparently led a thoroughly uneventful life. --Randykitty (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, WP:1EVENT does not apply because there is no separate event, for which the subject was a small part. The subject's aging and status is an attribute of that person. If that has made them famous, as it has, then they pass WP:BASIC. There is no separate event article and so no competition. Andrew D. (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The logic that having been the oldest person in the world for "only a few months" makes her non-notable is flawed, since she was the oldest person in Kanagawa for a lot longer than that, and she is currently the eighth oldest person ever (the highest person on that list not to have a standalone article is #26, who is one of only four named individuals in the top 50 not to be linked). The article does need work, though, since "のんきにすること" does not translate to "eating eel, drinking red wine, and never smoking" (this source doesn't appear to mention smoking, mentions simply that she likes wine -- not "red" wine -- and eel, and does not say anything about what she attributes her longevity to; then again, it is cut off mid-sentence so it's possible the second page verifies all that content). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly passes WP:Basic. Having been officially named by Guinness World Records as the oldest person living and the oldest female living is notable. Also, it passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for someone who has became the oldest (verified) living person sometime in their life, they're definitely notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 22:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This Afd proposal is a waste of everyone's time. Oska (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly meets WP:Basic cbratbyrudd (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Up till now, all "keep" !votes are non-policy based, but are different versions of WP:ILIKEIT, with unfounded claims that just being very old makes somebody inherently notable. However, even if we would accept that this person is notable, look at the article. There is absolutely nothing of encyclopedic interest in there apart from birth/death dates and places, which very easily can be accomodated in the List of the verified oldest people. Look at the references. I mean, really, look at them. The one in the Mirror, for example. All we learn from that "article" is that her family called her a "chatty godess" and that she liked sushi and eel. Or the Japan Times, which devotes two (2) whole sentences to Miyako, part of those talking about her predecessor and then talking about the current oldest persons. No biographical info whatsoever apart from the already mentioned birth/death dates and places. So, really? Is that really the kind of material that we'd like to build a biography on? The fact is that we have nothing to write about Miyako and given that more coverage is unlikely to follow, we'll never get beyond her liking for eel. --Randykitty (talk) 07:25, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed two of the references (one she isn't mentioned and another was used twice). There's also one source (ref 2) that tells us the following about her: "The 116-year-old Chiyo Miyako lives in Kanagawa, Japan." I'm not kidding... CommanderLinx (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that's false. For example, my position is based on WP:BASIC which is a standard guideline. It's Randykitty's position which is weak, being essentially the argument to avoid of WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. Andrew D. (talk) 07:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. You just say "meets BASIC", but as far as I see, it doesn't. And WP:NOPAGE applies here, too. And my argument is not UNENCYCLOPEDIC, if you think that I expressed myself not clear enough. My argument is that we have nothing that is encyclopedic, which is not the same thing. --Randykitty (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or Redirect to this table (better redirect target) at the Oldest People article where she is appropriately listed. WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB should almost certainly apply here. Despite the presence of NINE SEVEN sources, they tell us nothing of interest other than the absolute bare basics: her name, that she was born, she became the oldest in the world, and then she died. Throwing in some fluffy longevity trivia that strains to pad this article (oldest in her prefecture, she ate eel) means this article is never going to expand what can easily be summarised in a list/table somewhere. CommanderLinx (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just an update to my vote above, I've removed a sentence when she became the oldest in her prefecture as the sources doesn't mention her and another because it was used twice. CommanderLinx (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What the fuck??!! This is now the secondthird AfD of a recent death in as many days. How insensitive! It appears as if we have lost all basis in the real world. Users need to realize there are people watching, visiting these pages and finding a discussion about whether or not the person was worthy of even a mention. These deletion discussions can wait. Let the families mourn in peace. Unless it qualifies for CSD, it can keep for a few weeks. Please close this discussion as a Speedy no consensus. Ignore all the rules and close this. It is harmful to the outside world and the perception of Wikipedia in peoples mind.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just drop it, will you? As you have been told at WP:AN, this discussion does not belong here. --Randykitty (talk) 08:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Don't be ridiculous. Give a policy/guideline-based argument but not this. Really, we can never delete a bio of somebody who just passed away? And congratulations on formulating a new closing rationale ("speedy no consensus"), never heard that one before! --Randykitty (talk) 11:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go:[1]
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to uphold and strengthen our commitment to high-quality, accurate information, by: ... 2. Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest.
Emphasis mine. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And how does that apply here? Far as I can see, nobody has said anything unbecoming about Miyako, just that getting very old is not something that in and of itself meets our inclusion criteria, which is more a general thing than just this person. Nobody is saying anything here against human dignity and given that Miyako was so private herself that we don't find anything to say in this article means that we're not violating her privacy either. I'm sorry, but this is silly. --Randykitty (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of the verified oldest people per CommanderLinx. I struck my opinion above as this isn't going to be speedily closed, commander's argument swayed me here. What is the reader taking away from the article other than she was born, became the oldest person in the world, and then died? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep being the oldest person alive is a powerful claim of notabilty, as is being #8 on the list of the oldest people who ever lived. The basic facts are verified and editors who can read Japanese sources can improve the article. As for redirecting to List of the verified oldest people, that is a bad idea since there is no prose about the individuals on that list. Consider the case of Emma Verona Johnston mentioned as an example by the nominator above. That redirects to List of supercentenarians from the United States, where there are three paragraphs of prose about her life. Why should we have three paragraphs of prose about an American woman who lived to 114 but no prose at all about a Japanese woman who lived to 117 and was the oldest person in the world? That defies logic. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328: Could it be that we have three paragraphs about Johnston because there are reliable sources to support that content, but no reliable sources about Miyako that go beyond place and date of birth, place and date of death, period when she was the oldest living person, and her appreciation for eel, wine, and calligraphy? This discussion would be snow closed as keep if sources were presented that supported a decent (if short) biography, I suspect. EdChem (talk) 06:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no problem whatsoever with a brief article based on the information that is now in the sources, and editors who read Japanese can expand the article. For example, the article does not now mention her husband and the fact that his railroad job allowed her to travel extensively. We have plenty of articles about Olympic athletes of 100 years ago that are very brief as well. Olympic athletes are notable and Wikipedia ought to have biographies of them, and the world's oldest people too. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, I have re-written the Johnston piece into one paragraph, adding several references, and it is clear to me that there are others to be found. She did a videotaped interview that was used as part of a book on centenarians and was written up for her involvement in supporting education for women. If there are similar references for Miyako then a meaningful if small bio could be written... but are there? EdChem (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Randykitty, "silly" is your subjective opinion which I do not share and "permastub" is deletionist slang that has no basis in policy. You have criticized others for making arguments not based in policy and here you are, doing the same thing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slang it may be, but it is very much based in policy. WP:N (at WP:NOPAGE) has this to say about "permanent stubs": "Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub." (Linking to the essay WP:Permastub. --Randykitty (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Randykitty, WP:N is not policy; it is a guideline. We have only three core content policies, which are verifiability, no original research and the neutral point of view. This article is in full compliance with those three core content policies. Also, the article is not a permastub because it does not include any information about her marriage, her husband's railroad career and their travels together, all discussed in reliable sources. When I expand the article to include that information, the "permastub" argument will be null and void. Also worth noting is that neither the guideline language at WP:NOPAGE nor the essay WP:PERMASTUB calls for the deletion of such stubs. The essay point out that paper encyclopedias are full of such stubs, which can be entirely appropriate. As for weighing the advantages and disadvantages of this particular article, it should be clear to you that many highly experienced editors disagree with this deletion attempt. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • My, aren't we the wikilawyer. Fine, it's a guideline. !Votes should be based on policy or widely accepted guidelines such as WP:N. ANd, yes, probably a little more trivial info can be added to this permastub. And it should be clear to you that several highly experienced editors disagree with you that this indiscriminate information (one of the five pillars, remember) warrants a stand-alone article. --Randykitty (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cullen and others above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per IAR if need be. I believe that being the oldest person on the planet is enough to qualify one for a Wikipedia article. At any rate, deletion would not benefit our readers. Lepricavark (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How does this article benefit readers? The only "information" that isn't presented in a table at Oldest people is that she ate eel and did calligraphy. Again, WP:NOPAGE should almost certainly apply here. CommanderLinx (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a comment about this deletion in the thread about Chiyo Miyako on the 110 club website (for those that do not know it, it is the refuge of longevity topic-banned editors and cannot be linked here as it is a blocked website). It would be interesting to know how many of the keep voters are here as a result of that comment. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to DerbyCountyinNZ. Your sarcasm is unhelpful. Lack of compliance with a subject-specific notability guideline does not mean that an article should be deleted. Many topic areas are not covered by subject-specific notability guidelines. Being the oldest person in the world is a powerful claim of notability and if you cannot see that, then all I can do is to encourage you to re-think your position. Speaking only for myself, nobody canvassed me to this AfD debate. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A claim to notability doesn't justify an article if there is no significant coverage and no substantive content. There is currently nothing worthwhile in this article that a reader could not get from any list entry. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cullen. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Has anyone tried checking for sources added on other language versions of Wikipedia? She has a page at ja:wiki for example here... [2]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

The section in that article on longevity records is specifically excluded (by WP:CONSENSUS) in English wiki articles. Remove all the other longevity trivia/synth/OR and you're left with the same as the English version. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 17:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but are there additional corroborating citations that can be used? Do any of the additional citations have anything else that might be useful in the article? Peaceray (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, all sources there, here, and everywhere repeat the same things over and over. The only additional information available is the name of her husband Shoji and that he worked for the Japanese National Railways.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW Keep One of the ten oldest people who ever lived as of her death. What’s there is well sourced and well written. 1779Days (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are several "delete" or "merge/redirect" !votes from editors in good standing, so "snow" does not apply here at all. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that is in reference to the 77.77% (as of 05:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)) of editors who are indicating to keep. Very small chance of snowballs being made under these conditions. Peaceray (talk) 05:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@1779Days: Umm ... I agree with you on whether the article should be kept or deleted, but you obviously didn't read either my comment above or any of the sources you claim support "what's there". I just don't think half the article being quasi-sourced OR-speculation is grounds for deletion, per NOTCLEANUP. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The rationale for this deletion debate is flawed because it relies on the argument that the article is "unencyclopedic", whatever that means. According to Arguments to avoid in deletion debates, a widely respected essay, "the terms 'unencyclopedic', and its flip-side 'encyclopedic', are too general to be useful in deletion discussions". We do not delete articles based on the vague and general personal opinions of the nominator. I also object to the use of the term "fancruft" by the nominator in this debate. According to our essay on fancruft, "The term 'fancruft' is most commonly applied to fictional works and pop culture." Chiyo Miyako was a real human being and not the subject of popular culture. Describing her biography as "fancruft" is disrespectful and inappropriate. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong WP:SNOW Keep per Cullen and others above. One of the ten oldest people to have ever lived, and for a while, the oldest living person in the entire world. STRONG, STRONG Keep (WP:SNOW). Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Randykitty, this comment does nothing to further your argument, & is starting to sound like a personal attack. Please consider WP:CIVIL. Peaceray (talk) 05:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no personal attack in sight here, nobody made any personal remark here. And !voting "strong" without giving any argument based in policy or guidelines is not going to make your !vote somehow count more. --Randykitty (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Chiyo Miyako was the 8th oldest person who ever lived. Every other person who was in the top 16 has their own WP article. The oldest person who doesn't have their own article, Ana Maria Vela Rubio, was well over a year younger than Chiyo Miyako when she died. Also, every single oldest living person since November 2003 has their own article. Precedent says that we keep this one. 1779Days (talk) 05:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No its not a policy or guideline, but that and WP:WAX are used by the community as convincing arguments. I keep seeing keep arguments point to other articles, but not directly answering the main concern. What is the reader taking away from this article? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think discussions about consistency are valid & should not be lightly dismissed. This ought to be considered, though not in a complete absence of other factors. Regarding what the reader takes away from this particular article, anyone who is researching the 25 oldest people ever (as defined from List of the verified oldest people) ought to be able to find this information easily. Perhaps the reader wants to know about diet, health habits, marital status, country of birth & residence, etc. I certainly do. The key to notability for Chiyo Miyako is that less than 20 people out of billions have lived beyond 115 years. As per a common definition wiktionary:notable#Etymology_2, notable is "Worthy of notice; remarkable; memorable; noted or distinguished." Living to 117 is notable; I cannot understanding why anyone would think that it is not notable. That Chiyo Miyako may have lived an otherwise unnotable life is irrelevant to the fact that she is one of a unique group to have lived so long. Indeed, it may be that because she lived what may be appear to be a dull life to many may precisely be why she lived to 117. That deserves to be something that any reader who is interested then should be able to find easily. For me, that is the purpose of an encyclopedia, to be comprehensive. Peaceray (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid you are making the classical error of taking the dictionary definition of notable, whereas here at WP, the word "notable" has a very definite, but different, meaning. Please see WP:N for a more complete exposé. --Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Notability states Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice", I find Randykitty's assertion to be disingenuous. But let's continue with most of the General notability guideline criteria for argument's sake.
  • "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.checkY (No original research here)
  • "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline.checkY
  • "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.checkY
  • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it.checkY
I fail to find that en.Wikipedia's notability criteria is at variance with the common sense understanding of notability. I believe that Chiyo Miyako fits the criteria for notability guidelines.
Peaceray (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And as has been said before, even if for the sake of argument we would accept that this person meets WP:N, then that oter pesky part of WP:N still applies: NOPAGE, because we have nothing of interest to write (her husband worked for the railways! She liked eel!) --Randykitty (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, yes, that would buttress my earlier point. We are not going to see diet, health habits, marital status, & place of birth covered in List of the verified oldest people, are we? Those are all questions of importance to readers interested in gerontology. Therefore the answers to the WP:NOPAGE questions Does other information provide needed context? & Do related topics provide needed context? would be no, indicating a separate article is warranted. Peaceray (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Refraining from sarcasm with difficulty). Given that the average gerontology fan is interested in huge amounts of trivia (as witnessed in a certain off-wiki forum) I wouldn't be surprised if they were interested in such "important" questions, however I doubt that the average reader with a passing interest in the oldest people (rather than gerontology in general) would be as concerned. In any case the info inthe article as it stands could easily be incorporated into List of Japanese supercentenarians#People as has been done in other cases where the subject did not merit a stand-alone article. Your argument on this basis is not convincing. DerbyCountyinNZ (TalkContribs) 04:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DerbyCountyinNZ, the rub here is that all the information that is of interest of a casual reader interested in gerontology (diet, health habits, marital status, place of birth, & the fact that someone was the eldest person alive at the time of their death) is all information that could easily be represented in an infobox or an expandable list, & not much to flush out beyond the bones of an article. My professional life has included designing databases (I am all about that lossless-join thing) & being a reference librarian, both occupations that are about preserving information of interest. The real solution would be to put all this info into Wikidata then pull it into Wikipedia via modules or templates to produce a directory-like listing either in an expandaded list or a standalone article. While many other language Wikipedias embrace this, unfortunately English Wikipedia has been very resistant to this, although I think an individual project like WOP could initiate it on its own. Come up with a way of presenting Rank, Name, Sex, Birth date, Death date, Age, Place of death, Place of residence, Place of birth, Marital status, brief description of diet, brief description of health habits, & an indicator if someone was the eldest person alive at the time of their death, then I do not really care whether it is a stand-alone article or a list. The only reason we have stand-alone articles for many of these folks is that the current lists are inadequate for the task. Peaceray (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While understanding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, everyone else that lived to be over 115 has an article. I don't know what probability that is to live to be that old, but it's pretty small. I consider her notable. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 23:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not even close to being correct. Two people in the current List of the verified oldest people do not have articles, and three are redirects to mini-bios in their respective country lists, all of those bios having (arguably?) more content than the current Miyako article. Apart from that even the GRG admits that "not all supercentenarians are known to researchers at a given time", so it is not "everyone else that lived to be over 115" it is only those listed here (which is a clone of the GRG list). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither Giuseppina Projetto nor Ana María Vela Rubio are in the top ten for longevity. Chiyo Miyako sits at #8. Also, another piece of information that gets lost if Chiyo Miyako was subsumed into the list is that she was the eldest person alive at the time of her death. That is not captured in List of the verified oldest people & is an additional argument for keeping this as its own article. Peaceray (talk) 02:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just did a quick KB check in my sandbox... here were the results:
  • [3] Giuseppina Projetto (2,832 bytes)
  • [4] Chiyo Miyako (2,976 bytes)
You are trying to say that critical information is being lost? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are diet, health habits, marital status, place of birth, & the fact that someone was the eldest person alive at the time of their death critical information? I would say the answer is yes if one is even a casual reader of gerontology, particularly the eldest person status. How do you preserve this information? Peaceray (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is time we stop privaleging longevity with articles that say nothing substantive about the individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnpacklambert, this is not about privileging longevity. This is about preserving information about diet, health habits, marital status, place of birth, & the fact that someone was the eldest person alive at the time of their death. How do you propose preserving that? Peaceray (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Peaceray's argument above on notability as "worthy of notice" as less than 20 people out of billions [are known to] have lived beyond 115 years. There will be significant information lost if this page is deleted or redirected. The information contained within is of interest to a significant portion of our readers interested in longevity. (Not me, I plan on dying young! Living to old age is my nightmare.) And the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "significant information" lost if redirected to oldest people is she had a husband who travelled and she ate eel. And it being WP:INTERESTING is not a reason to keep. Again with WP:NOPAGE this article is never going to expand beyond what is easily summarised in a list. CommanderLinx (talk) 05:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Without delving into the depths of the Longevity issues on Wikipedia, here is a point that those in the "of course the world's oldest person is notable" camp might like to consider. Who says she is/was the world's oldest person? Simple right? Guinness "confirmed" this just before her death. End of story. Wrong! Guinness has previously stated that someone was the WOP, only to later to retract that attribution (Shigechyo Izumi). That was back when they did their own research. Now they (AFAIK) let the GRG do all their longevity research. So, no problem you might think. In this case when Nabi Tajima died the next oldest "verified" person was Miyako, as was reported widely in WP:RS. And the GRG is more reliable than other sources in this matter right? Except that Elizabeth Bolden was announced to be the WOP by both Guinness and the GRG only for the later identification of María Capovilla to be older. In addition the GRG has previously listed people as verified but with a question mark most of whom were eventually removed, while Mathew Beard was eventually "confirmed" to be "validated". In addition at one point the GRG (through Robert Young) insisted that an English supercentenarian had died when a relative insisted on Wikipedia that she had not. The GRG was in error. So just how reliable IS the GRG??? Two successive RFCs here determined that no preference be given to the GRG over other reliable sources when it comes to the List of oldest living people. Given the edits/rationale behind the edits to List of oldest living people and Chiyo Miyako on July 25 (I have to note the multiple violations of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EW for the edits I reverted in both cases), I have to wonder if the GRG should even be a considered a WP:RS at all. Are other editors still happy to blindly follow the GRG and Guinness when it comes to "verified" oldest (living) people? And if so surely it would be appropriate to define exactly what criteria determines notability in such cases. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response You raise interesting questions, DerbyCountyinNZ, but those questions cannot possibly be resolved in an AfD debate about an individual article. As for the reliability of "GRG and Guinness", we rely on widely acceptable reliable sources to do that work of evaluating reliability for us. In this case, the accuracy of the facts reported by Guinness were evaluated and republished by the Associated Press and then by dozens of reliable sources worldwide. I recall Time magazine, the Washington Post, and Newsweek magazine, among many others. It is not Wikipedia's job to reject the reporting of reliable sources worldwide about supercentennarians or any other topic. It is our job to summarize those sources, accurately and concisely. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Rushed). The point is that there are other Reliable Sources who claim that someone else is or might be the WOP. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, obviously, DerbyCountyinNZ, if sources as reliable as the Associated Press and the Washington Post article exist and assert that she was not actually the verifiable oldest person in the world, then those sources should both be brought to the debate and added to the article. Please produce those sources discussing Chiyo Miyako now, and explain why they are reliable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Explain "why they are reliable"? Surely the onus is on users to explain which sources are NOT reliable? Every current entry in Longevity claims#Recent is as far as I am aware (though I have not checked, it's too much of a fanfluff page for me to be that bothered) reliably sourced. I would certainly have removed them if I thought they failed WP:RS. And as one of the criteria for inclusion is that they be claimed to be older than the "verified" oldest living person, then any one of them could in fact be the WOP. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 11:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, I think reliable sources for WOP is ripe for discussion at WT:WOP. Peaceray (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article provides nothing of encyclopedic value that cannot be found on lists in other articles. Information like, "She credited eating eel, drinking red wine, and never smoking for her longevity" is pure fancruft (as well as being unfounded original research provided by Miyako herself - despite the statement being sourced, in a sense, at heart it really is self-published, which is another violation of Wikipedia policy) and has no encyclopedic value, nor does the fact that she and her husband traveled a lot thanks to his railroad job. Longevity is not a contest, so there does not need to be a fancruft article for every new worlds oldest person. This article should be deleted. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:33, 4 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/Chiyo_Miyako&oldid=1223554872"