Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/María Díaz Cortés (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. Randykitty (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

María Díaz Cortés[edit]

[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. No sources, unremarkable longevity claim, and we're left with WP:NOPAGE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete living to 117 is extremely unlikely, and given her daughter is 44 years younger than her mother's claimed age, this looks like a case of deception. It would be a real miracle to have a child at 44, and given she lived without even basic home amenities I doubt she had a fertility doctor's help. Therefore this page is promoting an unverified highly suspicious claim. The previous AfD was poorly presemted and poorly attended with no one looking at the reasonableness of the claim. Legacypac (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Legacypac. This poorly sourced article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable, and this WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. I also agree that editors should use discretion and weigh the reasonableness of such a claim when faced with obvious age deception. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment / Delete I love the irrationality of the arguments for deleting arguments about supercentenarians. The nom says it's an "unremarkable longevity claim", while one voter says "living to 117 is extremely unlikely"! If she really was 117 years and 11 days old when she died, she would not have been the oldest person ever, as two verified supercentenarians have lived for longer. 117 is both possible, and remarkable. As for having a child at 44 being "a real miracle", no, it is quite possible, as per the Wikipedia article on Maternal age, "Having children later was not exceptional in the past, when families were larger and women often continued bearing children until the end of their reproductive age." But if it was a real miracle, why wouldn't that be notable? Looking at the actual guidelines for notability, I do not find much coverage - one report of her 116th birthday, reports of her death, and one paragraph in one book. So it looks to me as though she does not meet WP:GNG, whether or not her claimed age was true. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I see what you mean. What I meant, anyway, is that there are a lot of claims to reach this age; the remarkable ones are the ones with impeccable sourcing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there are not two people who outlived this claimed record now thatthe gold standard for verified claims has been researched better. [1] Legacypac (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO1E and WP:NOPAGE. There is nothing to say about her other than she was born, claimed age X and then died. CommanderLinx (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:48, 6 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) 16:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No GNG satisfied. Wiki is not a Guinness Book of Records.--1l2l3k (talk) 04:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insignificant coverage despite extraordinary claims made by the subject. -- MapSGV (talk) 06:01, 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.