Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sant Kaur Bajwa (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Sant Kaur Bajwa
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

person only claimed to be 115 years old never verified. Redsky89 (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment All the effort I put into creating this article and someone is trying to delete it! Why do I even bother contributing to Wikipedia?! Francium12 (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The best way to defend the article is to post additional sources like the ones already there, newspaper and magazines, the more better. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I could do that and it could still be deleted. I'd feel a bit of an idiot then! Francium12 (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GNG multiple reliable sources. We don't care about the truth of the 115-year claim, we only care if the topic is notable, which by GNG means it has been covered in multiple reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This is yet another abuse of, and demonstration of the failings in, multiple wiki guidelines. This person made the news for one event which only achieved "supposed" significant coverage because most media outlets will repeat any rubbish without the slightest attempt at checking whether a claim is true or not, despite being cited as reliable sources (thus not even satisfying the "verifiability not truth" maxim). Any notability this person supposedly has will be temporary at best. Why? Because it is not only extremely unlikely to be true, but even less likely to be proven true. There are hundred, if not thousands, of unproven claims to this sort of age, the sheer number of which is a clear indication that only the most exceptional should be considered notable enough to justify an article. This case isn't one of them. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Many Category:Longevity claims have Wikipedia pages. The category is called "claims". It is not our responsibility to verify longevity claims for absolute truth. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Yes, one could argue that Sant Kaur Bajwa has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and that she would therefore pass WP:BIO. But taking a closer look at this guideline, one finds that not only the mere existence of media coverage is demanded, but also encyclopedic suitability of the subject in question. And I dare say that this is not met here: Just claiming to be very old, without a definite proof, is not sufficient (also because of WP:V). Please note that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This means that being featured in some kind of a news source does not automatically call for a Wikipedia article. All coverage is about her death, so that one could further argue that she is only notable for one event (dunno if "death" is applicable here, though). In any case WP:EVENT also comes to mind: There has not been any ongoing news coverage; what we are talking about here is a relatively short news spike. To sum it up, even though there are reasonable sources, she should not be included into Wikipedia because there is just no "raison d'être".--FoxyOrange (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There are many articles on Wikipedia Category:Longevity claims. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Note most sources were written after their death it doesn't seem to be enough to be a stand alone article. this article could be redirected to Longevity claims or Incomplete longevity claims if it seems to fit. just a suggestion. Redsky89 (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can have standalone articles for incomplete longevity claimants so long as there are multiple reliable sources that cover the topic in depth. We do not bias against people born in countries that did not issue birth certificates. Just because she has a Wikipedia article doesn't make her claim complete. But not giving her a Wikipedia article because her claim is incomplete is biased. The way to handle it is to rely on GNG which says multiple reliable sources that cover the topic in depth. When those sources appeared is irrelevant, subjects can become notable after death. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep: Reasons noted above. PrairieKid (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment -- If this were true, it might possibly make her notable. The problem is likely to be that there is no way of verifying her date of birth, as there was (I believe) no registration of birth in India at the time.  It might conceivably be possible to verify it from the dates of birth and parental ages of successive gnerations of her descendants.  My guess is that all the sources cited depend on a single press release, probably by a member of the family.  A redirect to Longevity claims or Incomplete longevity claims might be more appropriate, as there is nothing notable about her apart from her alleged age.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Having looked at the targets, most of the claims do NOT have articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: To be on the safe side, let us discuss one more week.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, unverified claims. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 12:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. The subject clearly does pass WP:BASIC. However, the statement of WP:BASIC states that "Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria ... such as those listed in What Wikipedia is not." More precisely, the subject in this case does not pass WP:NOTNEWS, as there is no evidence of there being coverage beyond the context of a single event, being her death.  069952497a  (U-T-C-E) 15:31, 29 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.