Deletion of Chiyo Miyako

Comment: Clearly passes asic. Having been officially named by Guinness World Records as the oldest person living and the oldest female living is notable. Also, it passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Bots (WP:B||WP:GNG)

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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP: UNENCYCLOPEDIC||WP:FANCRUFT)

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 . 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 Talk:List of oldest living people/Archive 14|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 , ,  and  and  for the edits I reverted in both cases), I have to wonder if the GRG should even be a considered a  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:RS||WP:V||WP:RS||WP:BLP||WP:CONSENSUS||WP:EW||WP:RS)

Comment: While understanding , 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: Up till now, all "keep" !votes are non-policy based, but are different versions of , 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: and/or '''Redirect''' to Oldest_people#Chronological_list_of_the_oldest_known_living_person_since_1955|this table (better redirect target) at the Oldest People article where she is appropriately listed.  and  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOPAGE||WP:PERMASTUB)

Comment: 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 (
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: Passes .   is irrelevant because there is no separate event
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:1EVENT)