Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariam Amash (3rd 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 merge to Longevity claims. Courcelles (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mariam Amash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I'm not sure there's sufficient notability from being a pretender to a claim of longevity. Longevity claims which is where it could go is a complete amalgamation of all sorts of claims like this. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Longevity claims. Being validated by Guinness or another agency as the oldest woman ever would make her notable but that's not the case here. There is some independent news coverage but it repeats her own claim that she's the oldest woman ever. There's also not much to this article besides her claim of extreme age. Since there already exists a list of unverified claimants in Longevity claims, it makes sense to merge this article into that one. Ca2james (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The only real 'coverage' going on is repeated claims on her extreme longevity. I doubt some reliable secondary sources will get even coverage on this. --201.53.53.216 (talk) 06:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion? or support keeping the article? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. Changed to avoid confusing people. --201.53.53.216 (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Longevity claims.Clearly not the claimed age per supporting evidence. Worth mentioning in Longevity claims with other similar claims that are unsustained. - Galloglass 19:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Longevity claims. Preferable to deletion because she did get news coverage, so it's useful to have claim be documented as implausible.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2015 (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.