Deletion of Yukichi Chuganji

Comment: As nominated, this article was well within the policy for designating it an article for deletion. I've rescued it. It's been a mess, according to it's tag, for more than four years. It's still full of stuff that's got no source, and a bit of a  for disputes about other peoples' actual ages. But, as now edited, it may just barely scrape the high jump bar of sufficient sources to keep. But if so, the bar is wobbling on its supporting brackets from the scrape. A closer who found my edits insufficient, and that the bar did not survive the scrape --- but rather wobbled and then fell into the landing pit --- would hear no argument from me. It's a damn close call. One of the few. Most of the recent nominations of hobbyist longevity stubcruft have been un-rescuable and clearly neede deletion. The castigation and approbation being heaped on JJB for this is wholly unwonted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: DHanson317, your contributions to six AFDs each argue based on an implied belief in "inherent notability" for the individual criteria you state. While further consensus is still sought at the discussion link in the nom, I believe it established that there is no consensus for biography-level notability inhering in single-source cases on such broad criteria: the few cases truly inherently notable also turn out to be |generally notable. Consensus indicates instead that these individuals have only line-item notability, i.e., one reliable source would permit the individual to be (only) a line-item in one or more list articles: and in your six cases, the individual is in an average of ''seven WP lists already'', which is still excessive
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)