Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fulla Nayak (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. Consensus is to delete due to failing the GNG - of the five sources, some contain only trivial coverage and others are not reachable anymore. The claims of her age being 125 are not verifiable - we can verify that she /claimed/ to be 125, but not that she /was/ - and the claim of being 150 is simply laughable. ST47 (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fulla Nayak

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Time for another AfD. Farcical longevity claim, which all of the few sources here treat with far too much credulity. After the previous AfD people stripped all the unreliable sources out of this, which leaves us with the following 1. a couple one-off articles about smoking weed at a purportedly old age, which is not actually notable, 2. an uncritical puff piece on her age, and 3. a couple obituaries. Maybe a short mention on Longevity myths at most, but definitely not a full article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG because its subject lacks sustained WP:SIGCOV of her life or deeds. Her longevity claim combined with her weed use was an oddity that scammed some coverage, but scam or not, that coverage was not sustained WP:SIGCOV of her. It all dates from around the years she died and made a little buzz. Newshunter12 (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is SIGCOV in RS. The first part of the nom's rationale (that the sources are uncritical) should be disregarded as it is not based in policy. The second part of the nom's rationale is in and of itself an argument for keep, as he acknowledges that there such significant coverage exists. schetm (talk) 06:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How is noting 2 articles about her alleged weed habit and 1 obviously factually inaccurate article significant coverage? I'm open to thinking I missed something here, but that's about what I found. And just because an ordinarily reliable source says something that's obviously wrong doesn't mean Wikipedia has to, or should, repeat it here; factual accuracy matters, and that's seriously compromised if one of the only sources is wildly off-base. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One simply reports that, although the newspapers have called her 120+, she has not been validated as such by any of the normal agencies that do so (GRG, Guinness, etc.) SIGCOV is defined as "address(ing) the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." The existing coverage, in my mind, meets that, and therefore gets her over the hump. schetm (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.