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. Sandstein 12:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Varvara Semennikova

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Aside from more specific considerations such as WP:1E (her alleged notability stems from maybe being very old but maybe not, thus the one event I refer to here is "getting really old" not "an individual birthday") and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, this individual does not seem to meet the general guidelines of WP:N. There is no Wikipedia policy that grants automatic notability to people of an extreme age (numerous AfDs on the "oldest" individuals have been kept or deleted based on their individual merits), which makes WP:N the relevant policy. Specifically, I do not see any evidence of non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent third-party sources. She seems to have had brief bursts of attention and a handful of clone or near-clone obituaries after her death, meaning that she lacks the sustained coverage that would distinguish her from thousands of other individuals claiming (falsely or otherwise) to be very old. There's nothing here of encyclopedic merit that could not be covered by the longevity claims article. Canadian Paul 14:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two of the three sources are dead, but appear to be simply routine obits mentioning this doubtful longevity claim (which is in keeping with the common "people in Region R live a long time" trope). E Eng 09:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Utterly non-routine obituaries that back a strong claim of notability, as the world's oldest person. That the claim is unverified and potentially false is no more a reason to delete this article than to delete the articles for Black helicopter, grey alien or Bigfoot; nor do sources have to be readily linkable to be reliable and verifiable. Alansohn (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be routine obituaries and a vague mention that she enjoyed eating fish. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From [1], "Varvara’s usual diet comprises fresh fish (she eats it in the raw after flaking away small pieces with a knife)". That's "a vague mention that she enjoyed eating fish"? I don't see that as "vague". Unscintillating (talk) 03:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not established by old age nor how long a thing has existed.--Rpclod (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This subject fails our notability guidelines. The only coverage is routine and trivial. Being especially old, in and of itself, does not confer notability. It take non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources to do that. I can't find that here. David in DC (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a snowball's chance in hell given we've clearly stated not all such subjects are inherited notability, and especially not in a case where "it may have been". SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The claim is verified by one source (the National Archive of Yakutia) that this was the oldest person alive in August 2008. If someone needs a notability guideline, Anybio#1 and Anybio#2 appear to apply. The important thing is that this is not Wikipedia's opinion, but the opinion of sources we consider to be reliable, such as it is. To some extent, deleting the information would be suppressing information we believe to be reliable. Unscintillating (talk) 02:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANYBIO criteria #1 is: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." What award or honor has the subject received? I see nothing. ANYBIO criteria #2 is: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Again, there is no contribution other than happenstance old age, which WP defines as not inherently notable.--Rpclod (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All of the sources in the article are online. One of them is a reprint of one of the others. Unscintillating (talk) 02:26, 27 November 2016 (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.