Deletion of Koto Okubo (2nd nomination)

Comment: to List of Japanese supercentenarians The GRG project aka ikiProject World's Oldest People is getting step-by-step closer to being disbanded by the community for exactly the kind of activity going on in this AfD
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Help:Watchlist (WP:W)

Comment: I do feel that Koto Okubo's status as a WOW qualified her for "widespread non-trivial coverage". As has been stated in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_World%27s_Oldest_People#Notability_and_sourcing, "significant, independent coverage in reliable sources is required"; Koto Okubo qualifies for this, as her status as the World's Oldest Woman garnered her attention and she was covered in worldwide media press ranging from The Huffington Post, see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/13/koto-okubo-dead-dies-oldest-woman_n_2466701.html, to CBS News and from The Telegraph to Japan Daily Press. To justify the retention of Mrs. Okubo's article, it is not only worth mentioning that Wikipedia is not a hardcopy encyclopedia - thus not limited to space - but also that notability is not determined by the length of an article. Mrs. Okubo's article could still be expanded on by adding material from other sources that might be located in the future. To draw the discussion even wider... Wikipedia has articles on every player who once participated in any major league sports, even if they played just one game -  and this is in the Wikipedia guidelines! Moreover, there are entire Wikipedia articles on draws of virtually all Grand Slams there have ever been in the Open Era of tennis, and statistics on various tennis players - the latter clearly violating the Wikipedia policy of . Surely, if these articles are justified, an additional policy of people having attained WOP/WOM/WOW status can be proposed. Now don't get me wrong; I see the need to trim down on trivial articles on supercentenarians as I realise that Wikipedia is a(n) (scientific) encyclopedia instead of a "fanclub" - I understand that not everyone should have an article about him/her, I am not delusional - yet I do think that a status as WOP/WOM/WOW (a title which will always be in the history books) justifies having an article about that person, even if it is not the longest of articles. Lastly, there is not a single WOP/WOM/WOW titleholder from the last thirty years without an own article; then why should Mrs. Okubo be the lone exception to that? It seems to me that some of the voters here are doing it out of oint
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:P)

Comment: Like  says
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: in support of notability:  Her death was widely reported in multiple languages (I found English and Spanish right off the bat) and her death and others has been the subject of satire http://glossynews.com/society/201301171029/worlds-oldest-person-dies-again/.  If that doesn't meet the qualifications of  then I'm interpreting  incorrectly.   To those raising the issue of  and ther stuff exists, the near-uniformity of other top-40-longest-lived people having their own long-standing articles strongly argues in favor of a '''general discussion''' on whether "having your death widely-reported due merely to old age" or "being in newspapers around the world merely due to old age" satisfies  or whether those individuals fall under , and it strongly argues against using the "one event" and "other stuff exists" as reasons to delete articles one at a time
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GNG||WP:ONEEVENT||WP:O||WP:GNG||WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: There is plenty of coverage out there, so the  is satisfied. I added several English-language sources, and could have added more.  could apply, except that there is no way to ahve an article about the "event" of her becomign oldest living woman. Therefore I feel this article is justified by policy, and i don't see the delete argumetns as having much value. Granted this is a stub, there is nothing wrong with accurate, well-sourced stubs
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: as a stub-like bio. Though I don't feel strongly about a merge, if all the content here is merged into some other article (list of oldest people in the world at the time of death). So long as no information is lost, what's the difference in where it is? Lumpers and splitters should both be happy with . I just don't like deleting info, per . The only argument I can see for leaving this a stubbish stand-alone bio, is that, in a sense stand-alone articles, even stubs (especially stubs) invite further contribution in the same manner as a redlink does. Perhaps somebody out there (for example) has a WP:V source for how this woman lived, what she ate, whether she was demented and when (if so), or something about the ages of her ancestor deaths, etc., which will later aid somebody in a hypothesis about the causes of these unusual things. Keeping this a stub is pretty harmless, as she's dead
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SS||WP:NOTPAPER)

Comment: General consensus seems to be that world's oldest women and world's oldest man titleholders are notable enough to warrant their own article. Notability due to a title is |not temporary. Even monarchs who reigned for a short time are notable enough for their own article. But this isn't about the first AFD or bringing the article back afterwards...it's about whether the upgrade in status to the Guinness world's oldest woman titleholder brought enough recognition to meet the Wikipedia "notability" standard. I would say "yes". It's been "yes" for everyone else since at least the 1980s. Why should this case be different? The article does contain more than just her birth/death dates and her country of residence. The fact that one other user in this discussion "doesn't give a shit" about anything else is irrelevant
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP)

Comment: If this closes as "merge" I strongly recommend that the closing admin replace the content with '''{{tl|Afd-merge to}} followed by a soft-redirect and a link to the most recent prior edit,''' which can later be changed to a regular "redirect" when the merge is complete.  This will make sure that the "failure to implement the results of the AFD" that we saw with the previous AFD doesn't happen again. Note - I'm still strongly in favor of keeping, but I am also strongly in favor of following processes except in |rare cases that don't apply here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)