Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antisa Khvichava


 * 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. Michig (talk) 08:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Antisa Khvichava

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Longevity claim with almost no information. Once stripped of the irrelevant filler material about Georgian record keeping and the flagrant GRG plug, there's basically the fact that she was born at some point, claimed to have lost her birth certificate, and died. All of the relevant information is best kept in list and table form at Longevity claims. WP:NOPAGE The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 01:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete pretty obvious fraud considering claim to have lived 10 years beyond the "verified" oldest person Jeanne Calment, a record that itself looks to be a fraud based on research by an expert. Legacypac (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete This article fails WP:BIO1E and WP:NOPAGE. Her age claim is so outlandish that she scammed some news coverage, but she doesn't even qualify to be listed in Longevity claims. Her claimed age is just that ridiculous. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed in an encyclopedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The sourcing does not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - One of those who were known only for claiming themselves to be oldest or very old. This is similar to other few recently nominated articles. These subjects lack significant coverage especially when we take their extraordinary claims into account. Rzvas (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources are more gossip than actual reliable secondary sources, especially since the claim is too extravagant to take seriously.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.