Deletion of Yukichi Chuganji (3rd nomination)

Comment: based on results of two prior AfDs, with no new argument being presented as to why they should be overturned. BBC and LA Times articles are |reliable sources, and there are others available as well - see https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2003/09/30/national/worlds-oldest-man-dies-at-114/ here at the Japan Times, https://books.google.com/books?id=WUJbDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA99&lpg=PA91 here in a book about centenarians, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/worlds-oldest-man-dies-in-japan/ here at CBS News, etc
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: to one of the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. There seems to be more coverage here than usual, but nothing that justifies a stand-alone article per . Previous nominations are irrelevant (unless made in quick succession) because |consensus can change. When it comes down to sourcing that provides encyclopedic content per , I do not feel that there is enough here to justify a stand-alone article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:CCC)

Comment: While not ''inherently'' notable by one of our professional or other people rules, :Yukichi Chuganji meets the  and should be kept a third time (!) as such
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The article on a deceased (i.e. non-) man has already been nominated twice. Each time it was closed as keep. Not no consensus or near keep, i.e. a borderline keep. Not even once. I try to remain open minded but where is the change versus previous discussions? This information feels missing to me
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: or '''Redirect''' to appropriate list.  and  should almost certainly apply here. Half the article is either unsourced longevity trivia about his predecessors/successors or original research about how someone was older but later is no longer recognised. What's left is the absolute bare life basics of born, bred worms, had a daughter who outlived him, became oldest man and then died. Entry on a list is enough because there is never going to be more than 5 things to say about him
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOPAGE||WP:PERMASTUB)

Comment: Meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per . After removing all the fancruft about "titleholders", there's just the barest bio info left. In most of these discussions we don't need to reach the question of whether they're notable, because even if they are they're still best presented in a list, per NOPAGE
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOPAGE)

Comment: This article fails  and  because there is only  coverage of him that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia on how he relates to other peoples longevity milestones or longevity milestones for various jurisdictions and the usual longevity trivia (born, had kids, lived with a daughter, died). There is nothing else to say about him. His age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on four different lists, where they are easier to view, so this article is not needed
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BIO1E||WP:ROUTINE)

Comment: as notable per .  I would suggest that being, at one point in time, the world's oldest living person is an exclusive club, and one for which general readership will seek encyclopedic information.  There is more verifiable information here than fits neatly within a list.  The encyclopedia would therefore not be improved by its deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)