Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarhat Rashidova

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) 14:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarhat Rashidova[edit]

Sarhat Rashidova (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 who got a brief spate of coverage, then died. There's essentially nothing about her life, and the little geography lesson on her home village demonstrates just how strained this is. WP:NOPAGE The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:23, 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 and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like she had no children of her own but raised five other children, a geography lesson on her village, her diet, and a lesson on how people in her region often inflate their ages. This article is not needed on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non notable hoax Legacypac (talk) 06:18, 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]
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.