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 no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Habib Miyan (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)

Unsubstantiated longevity claimant with almost nothing to say about him. The very few sources here are standard fare for such implausible claims. WP:NOPAGE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with fire. He can't read this since he is dead, its not a BLP so here goes. This is obvious pension fraud and identity theft. Who knows when he was really born, but he pretty clearly assumed someone else's identity and then outlived their plausable lifespan. Why did the BBC fall for this nonsense. 16 years longer life than the longest verified person's life? You might expect a ton more coverage if that was remotely true. Notable for nothing but fraud. Legacypac (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Legacypac. This article fails WP:GNG and WP:NOPAGE, but more importantly is a shrine to obvious pension and identity theft. How did this survive the first AfD and with no pushback? Newshunter12 (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As AfD contributor we have to judge the SIGCOV and notability without any prejudice, it is not our job to decide if he is a fraud or not. Miyan holds the Guinness world record for the Longest retirement pension.^[1] and the Limca Book of Records for the oldest man of Jaipur. Has received coverage over several years in reliable international media. 5 Articles in BBC News.(including a media gallery)^{[2][3][4][5][6][6]}2 in Times of India^[7][8] Hindustan Times^[9][10][11] AFP^[12][13] DNA India^[14] India Today^[15] Gulf News ^[16] The Hindu^[17][18] --DBigXrayᗙ 08:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per DBigXrayᗙ RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOPAGE. As Legacypac puts that since subject claimed to have lived 16 years longer than longest verified person, then we should clearly expect tons of more coverage than the minor amount of coverage available. Sdmarathe (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - One of those who were known only for claiming themselves to be oldest. This is similar to other few recently nominated articles. These articles lack significant coverage especially when we take their extraordinary claims into account. We are not supposed to be a platform for righting great wrongs. Rzvas (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed several independent reliable sources covering the subject in great detail. How is coverage in The Telegraph [1], Gulf News [2], BBC [3][4], The Hindu [5], being considered as trivial coverage ?--DBigXrayᗙ 08:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per established precedents, we go by the availability of references and not based on our convictions on whether or not the man was a fraud. The man has his name in the Guinness World Records ([6]), has multiple references on BBC ([7], [8], [9] and [10]), The Hindu ([11], [12]) besides a plethora of national and international media houses as mentioned above. Warrants a keep any day. Jupitus Smart 17:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the GNG has been demonstrated to have been passed. schetm (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GNG. Sourcing is diversified and meets WP:SIGCOV, for example the detailed 2005 profile in Telegraph India.[13] It does not matter whether his case was a fraud. — JFG ^talk 15:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- per WP:TNT. This article is clear and obvious baloney in how it uncritically accepts highly dubious claims of this man's extreme old age as unimpeachable gospel. Wikipedia should not be presenting tall tales to the world as though they're fact. Reyk _YO! 15:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT is not a policy. we are not here at AfD to decide the truth of his claim but to discuss the man's notability based on the WP:SIGCOV he has received.--DBigXrayᗙ 15:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are here to write a trustworthy reference work. Shit like this sabotages that goal; presenting clear falsehoods as though they're fact. There may be a neutrally written, verifiable article to be written about this guy but no part of the current mess would find its way in there. Hence my appeal to WP:TNT. Reyk _YO! 15:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind reply Reyk, I get your opinion, but I will point to WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The article as it stands now has inline citations for everything it states, you are welcome to start a discussion thread on the talk page for further improvements if you believe there is room for more improvement. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not for righting great wrongs. Subject made extraordinary claims but has received rather small amount of coverage for it. MapSGV (talk) 06:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with the coverage that has been presented ? WP:GNG criteria of multiple reliable sources have been met. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:35, 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.