Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benedykta Mackieło (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Benedykta Mackieło
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a purported supercentenarian which tells us almost nothing about her. Almost no sources, and those which do exist are of laughably routine events (as this article actually points out itself). WP:NOPAGE here. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 16:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete This poorly sourced article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the being old is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like her village's change in status, she was one of the first workers at a local sawmill, and didn't remember WWI (how surprising) but did WWII. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. One WP:ROUTINE obituary does not make someone notable. Even then, this is a WP:PERMASTUB that never will be expanded beyond "born, worked at a sawmill, got married and had two kids, lived to age X, died". No suitable redirect either. CommanderLinx (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - One of those who were known only for claiming themselves to be oldest or very old. These subjects lack significant coverage especially when we take their extraordinary claims into account. This is similar to other recently nominated articles. Rzvas (talk) 16:37, 10 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.