Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese supercentenarians (2nd nomination)

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 keep. postdlf (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese supercentenarians

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This page is nearly 100% duplicative of List of supercentenarians from Asia with only one name on the other list. There is no point maintaining two lists. Legacypac (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Just because one person does not want this article does not outweigh the many of us who want it to stay. Is it the fault of the Japanese that they have the bulk of the supercentenarians located in Asia? As time progresses and more cases are identified in other parts of Asia the two lists will continue to evolve and differ. If the person who nominated the deletion wants a change then why do they not propose that the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_supercentenarians_from_Asia is deleted? Crveni5 (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment Which page gets more hits? The top 100 Asian list or the top 100 Japanese list? Crveni5 (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Firstly, the page is not just a duplicate of List of supercentenarians from Asia with the exception of one name. It also includes information specific to Japan; living Japanese supercentenarians, and a chronological list of the oldest person in Japan since 1992 which are not on the Asian page. I also agree that as time passes more cases will be identified (able to be verified) in other parts of Asia, specifically China and India and it is premature to discuss removing the page for Japan, a country with the second most verifiable number of supercentenarians.TFBCT1 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I agree with Crveni5 and TFBCT1. - Alumnum (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is your WP:CRYSTAL ball working? Legacypac (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm all for condensing these lists down as much as possible but I reckon it'd be better to keep this one and redirect/delete the Asian one. Googling some of these names and you'll find a mention they're the oldest in Japan (country) but no mention of Asia (the continent). And like you said, the only difference is 4 immigrants who belong on their country of death lists and Yisrael Kristal who is covered in the oldest men list. CommanderLinx (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment Noticed a bit of canvassing for this discussion so I have added the appropriate notavote tag. CommanderLinx (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're canvassing comment is in reference to someone leaving me a message regarding this concern on my talk page. For the record, I've been updating the Japanese page on a daily basis since 2015 which means my input is more than warranted and it should be reasonably presumed that I would have certainly noticed this discussion anyway.TFBCT1 (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, the 110 Club is at it again, encouraging its members to come here and vote against the proposal, so the canvassing tag is appropriate. Canadian Paul 15:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others. Article is not merely a duplication of the Asia article; this one has extra statistics and Japan-specific information the other one does not. I'd also be fine with CommanderLinx's proposal above, namely redirecting the Asia article to this one. There is nothing unencyclopedic about this list; look at (on the same subject) Oldest people, List of oldest living people, and List of the verified oldest people, all of which exist and to my knowledge have not been challenged. 65 HC A7 22:05, 1 May 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.