Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fulla Nayak


 * 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   keep. L Faraone  17:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Fulla Nayak

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is a lie: "Fulla Nayak was the world's oldest woman, according to Guinness Book of World Records. She died of old age at 125." It's just not true, because her age has never been officially verified (there is no birth certificate). In my opinion, the lack of any documentation strips this woman of any encyclopedic notability. The story of her supposed extreme age was published by local Indian media, which were based on statements by family members and the (alleged) fact that her eldest daughter was 92 years old. Personally, with this piece of information I would give her age as less than 110 (but this matters not, of course). Due to her being a supposed regular smoker of cannabis (called "ganja" in India), her story (especially a photo of her) received quite some attention on the internet, by those who wished to make a point for the "Legalize It" movement. But I just don't believe that this is enough to lift Fulla Nayak above the Wikipedia inclusion threshold. FoxyOrange (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Daily News and Analysis and IBNLive— both are reliable sources. But, also note Guinness World Records has 0 entry in their online database! --Tito Dutta (contact) 03:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Question. What if there were sources and analysis debunking the claim of her age and discussing her cannabis usage? Because the article garnered 803,067 page views in the last couple of weeks. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 725,527 views in one day! That's amazing! --Tito Dutta (contact) 17:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Significant coverage in reliable sources exists:, among others. The argument for deletion seems to be based on the probable falseness of one claim in the article, and the nominator's perception that their opinion outweighs policy. (Can anyone explain the strange spike in pageviews on May 12?) – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Contrary to popular belief, WP:GNG is not a policy but a notability guideline and passing it is not the sole consideration for inclusion. Both WP:V and WP:NOT are however policies that may apply in this case.  Funny  Pika! 13:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, fair point. On the other hand, opinions (specifically FoxyOrange's opinion that "the lack of any documentation strips this woman of any encyclopedic notability") don't trump guidelines either. Which particular bit of WP:NOT are you referring to? – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I did a poor job in the above rationale, having it based nearly entirely on personal opinions. I should have read through it again before posting it. I was referring to the fact that per Notability (people), "the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be worthy of notice", and as long as her age cannot be verified, she is just some old lady without any notable achievements, and therefore not suitable for inclusion into an encyclopedia. Also, it is quite intriguing that all news articles about her only cite her grandson, Narayan Nayak. He is the one who claimed "that she could be the oldest woman living in the world." and "that he would write to the Guinness book authorities to record the claim." As the Guiness Book does not recognize her, my guess is that in the end, the whole story is just not verifiable.--FoxyOrange (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't "worthy of notice" just a synonym for "notable" though? And notability is the result of receiving significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and doesn't necessarily relate to one's achievements. I think the articles linked above demonstrate that the topic is notable (and indeed, worthy of notice). – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 11:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're basing the reliability of this story on the reputation of the secondary source. That would be fine if the subject was just meant to be routine coverage about a person who happened to be old, but I wouldn't consider a claim in a newspaper to be an authoritative source for an age related record. I doubt that if I claimed my grandparents were over 130 years old and that got picked up by the media that would make it true. This just strikes to me like a bit of WP:NOTGOSSIP hearsay released on a slow news day. Funny  Pika! 07:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we're arguing at cross purposes. My argument isn't that she verifiably reached a certain age and therefore is notable. Whether or not she did is irrelevant to her notability, which is determined by receipt of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which is the case (see above). I also don't see the relevance of WP:NOTGOSSIP; I think it's a stretch to call this either advocacy, an opinion piece, scandal-mongering, self-promotion or advertising. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see what her claim to significance is, if not for an age record. Is it just for gaining trivial news coverage? That sounds a bit routine to me. Not every minor news story is meant to have an article here, regardless of how many news sources pick up it. On a separate note, I did find this page: Incomplete longevity claims and I wouldn't be opposed to redirecting this there. Or here: Longevity claims if anyone can source her date of birth/death. Funny  Pika! 12:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not trivial coverage, significant coverage. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 09:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete since the 125 year age claim fails WP:V. According to the Guinness Book of Records, she was neither the oldest living person at the time nor the person with the longest lifespan. At the time of her death (November 2006), Elizabeth Bolden was the oldest certified living person (at 116) and Jeanne Calment is currently the oldest verifiable person to have lived (to the age of 122 years) . The reliability of sources clearly depends on context and the above references, while reprinted in several reputable news sources, would still be considered speculative. Since the claim has yet to be supported by documented evidence, I don't see how it can be used to contribute to her notablity here. I haven't found any reliable sources for the cannabis coverage, save to pro-marijuana blogs, which in any case is not enough to base an article on.  Funny  Pika! 03:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 00:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Hearts, due to there being WP:RS above. Whether she was the oldest person at the time, or not, is irrelevant, given that she passes WP:GNG. The views spike IS incredibly intriguing: a glitch? Or was she featured on some major "this day" website? Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BASIC. Here's another article from the Times of India: "She claims she is 125 years of age. Her voter's ID says she is 120. Under either case, Fulla Nayak is probably the oldest woman alive." The Guiness listing line should be deleted, though, if no reference is supplied. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've removed the claim that she was the oldest woman as verified by Guinness, per the consensus here that it's unlikely to be accurate, and replaced it with a quote from The Times of India. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the new lead "Fulla Nayak [...] was described as probably the oldest woman alive" sounds like a violation of WP:BALL. The article has been stripped of any facts, and is now purely speculative. It only reflects one opinion, and omits to tell the reader that there is no official confirmation.--FoxyOrange (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's not perfect. Perhaps you could amend it? – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 11:09, 31 May 2013 (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.