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 delete. Kurykh 00:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mito Umeta[edit]

Previously prodded and deleted and subsequently recreated by User:Kitia, so I'm bringing it to AfD. Does not seem to pass WP:N. Of the Ghits, none contain any substantial coverage of or information on the subject of the article. Thus it has little potential for expansion and contains no information aside from what is present in the various supercentenarian lists. My basic problem with this article is that there is little, if any, information out there that could be added to this article aside from what is already present on these lists. For those worried about English-language bias, I note that the Japanese Wikipedia entry is completely unreferenced as well. For those worried that the Google test is not sufficient for someone who died in 1975, I performed searches at both the University of Texas Libraries Catalog (which covers several voluminous libraries) and jstor.org (which covers journal articles back to the 1800s) with no results. Cheers, CP 20:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost no content, fails WP:N. STORMTRACKER 94 21:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 as recreation of deleted content, otherwise strong delete per nom as non-notable (no substantive coverage in WP:RS to meet WP:BIO). The subject of the article is already listed in the article oldest people, which is quite sufficient unless substantive coverage becomes available to demonstrate notability and to allow and article to consist of more than commentary about a person's position in a list. Given the nominator's deatailed searches, that seems unlikely. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously G4 doesn't apply here, because this was deleted via WP:PROD. Its recreation should be considered a challenge to the prod. Mango juice^talk 05:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, so I have struck out the speedy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I believe that the subject is notable, and would welcome a substantive article on her. But this isn't it, and it seems unlikely to ever happen. This mini-stub is not worth keeping. Matchups (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doomed to be an unnessecary bare bones article. Supercentenarians like her are for lists only, not articles. --RandomOrca2 (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2007 (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.