Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria do Carmo Gerônimo

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. Michig (talk) 08:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maria do Carmo Gerônimo[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)

Longevity claimant about which there is very little documentation. Almost all of the story about her life is unsourced, what is sourced is to one place, and it tells us nothing but mundane life details. Even what appears to be significant is self-undermining, being one of a bunch of names in one Time article tells us nothing about her. WP:NOPAGE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non notable hoaxer who claimed to be 7 years older than the oldest "verified" person, a record that may be a hoax itself [1] Legacypac (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E and WP:NOPAGE. Her age claim is so outlandish that she scammed some news coverage, but she barely even qualifies to be listed in Longevity claims. Her claimed age of 129 is just that ridiculous. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed in an encyclopedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One of those who were known only for claiming themselves to be oldest or very old. This is similar to other few recently nominated articles. These subjects lack significant coverage especially when we take their extraordinary claims into account. Rzvas (talk) 06:56, 9 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.