Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/José Coelho de Souza

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Randykitty (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

José Coelho de Souza[edit]

José Coelho de Souza (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)

Longevity claimant about whom almost nothing is known. Very little source material, and what exists tells us nothing beyond his profession and claimed age; the rest is filler original research and longevity trivia. WP:NOPAGE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO1E and WP:NOPAGE applies to this WP:PERMASTUB anyway as it won't expand beyond "born, worked, claimed age X, died". CommanderLinx (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a book of records, at least we do not have articles on each potential record holder.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - One of those who were known only for claiming themselves to be oldest or very old. These subjects lack significant coverage especially when we take their extraordinary claims into account. This is similar to other recently nominated articles. Rzvas (talk) 07:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As noted by OP, a large amount of filler OR and not much in the way of significant coverage Wolfson5 (talk) 06:04, 11 December 2018 (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.