Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of alleged Brazilian supercentenarians


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

List of alleged Brazilian supercentenarians

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Content fork from Longevity claims. Title violates WP:ALLEGED. Essentially a fan page created by one user who has not contributed to the article in over 2 years, and added to by another user who has not contributed to it in over a year. Content is redundant, incomplete, outdated, and at present rate of progress will have no "recent" entries within about 6 months. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. In my view, the whole world's oldest people suite of articles is a WP:WALLEDGARDEN that could bear review and careful pruning. David in DC (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - agree with David that some gentle gardening is in order. The problem, as the nom well knows, is that a serial sock-puppeter has made it his life's mission to delete certain supercentenarian-related articles. Happy to support any good-faith effort by an editor-in-good-standing to start that pruning and the rationale here seems strong. Stalwart 111  14:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Information is already available in Longevity claims. CommanderLinx (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete In addition to all that has been mentioned above, phrases like "The Brazilian National Institute's declaration strains credulity" make me believe that this article in any form is going to, at the very least, straddle some serious WP:NPOV and possibly WP:BLP issues for a host of otherwise non-notable individuals and unencyclopedic information. Canadian   Paul  17:28, 16 September 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.