Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Olivia da Silva

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous. I count 8 clear "delete" votes (including one that looks like an anon user but actually has a well documented history) and 8 "keep" votes (two real anons discounted). Failing to reach a clear concensus to delete, the article is kept for now.

However, I note that the fundamental verifiability of the article's content was never satisfactorily addressed. If, after a reasonable period of time, this article remains unverified, it may be appropriate to renominate it. Rossami (talk) 00:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maria Olivia da Silva

[edit]
  • Says she became the new "world's oldest person" after the death of someone a decade younger than she. Is this just a rumor or true information?? Delete if no one can prove it is true info rather than a pure rumor. Georgia guy 00:55, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up. She is listed as the "oldest documented supercentenarian" in that article on the limits of the human lifespan. Jonathunder 01:39, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not the Guinness Book of Records. Megan1967 02:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. ComCat 02:38, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Gamaliel 02:41, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: She is in the longevity article, and there isn't enough to say about her. A single event or record is almanac stuff or a records book. A breakout article is only warranted if the subject is the target of searches or has some complexity that cannot be contained in a list article or other discussion.

Geogre 02:54, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete and redirect to supercentenarian--nixie 03:41, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a longevity myth, plain and simple, and needs to be rewritten to reflect that or Deleted. (I speak as someone who has for years been supplying the Guinness Book with the people they DO recognize,and has attended international gatherings on the validation of extreme age claims). This claim is essentially a piece of self-promotion by a Brazilian recordbook.--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 05:08, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Here is the news source [1]
  • Delete and redirect to supercentenarian. Simply living a long time isn't sufficient information to base an article on. --Carnildo 06:48, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, looks like it's gaining credibility news-wise. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:08, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. 80.255 10:42, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • (responding to Tim Rhymeless,there is no trace of the case "gaining credibility", Stan Lehman's Associated Press story relying on RankBrasil's self-promotion has just continued to circulate without evidence being produced. More broadly, a significant number of supercentenarians (documented ones, as well as famous pretenders like Elizabeth Israel have bio articles...could there be some standard criteria here? Any real SC is more "notable" IMO but the extravagant fakes need to be pointed out as such.)--L.E./12.144.5.2 14:07, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • In response, I think that even if it's proven to be merely a myth, in the next few weeks, she's received enough media attention that the page should be kept. That is why I believe this should be kept. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:19, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to one of the pages mentioned above. Radiant! 16:51, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - if the fact that she's 125 is a longevity myth, then she might be 125, or she might not. Until it is confirmed whether or not she's 125, keep. -- 67.81.191.226 | 01:23, Mar 6 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is either notable truth or a notable hoax. -- Curps 06:20, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not on Snopes.com, though, which makes it doubtful as a 'notable hoax'. Radiant! 10:52, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems notable enough. Capitalistroadster 12:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course. Extreme longevity is notable if it attracts any significant attention, as this woman has. Not to mention that if she is indeed the world's oldest person, she'd be de facto notable anyway. Everyking 20:43, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • But her extreme longevity is unlikely to be as extreme as her promoters claim (no pre-1970s documents have been produced,a convenient 1960s fire destroyed her earlier paperwork,and the birth certificate on the RankBrasil website was issued in 2000 or 2001.Lots of REAL supercentenarians have their own articles and deserve them.If we added one for every off-the-wall claim to be older than ever proven,we'd be snowed under.CLAIMS TO BE this old are nothing new!--Louis E./12.144.5.2 23:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, she got into the news. I'd say that, whatever her true age is, it is at least a notable claim. And that combined with the possibility that she was indeed born in 1880 is enough for a keep vote from me. Everyking 02:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as 1) unverified, 2) if a hoax, not a notable one, 3) no way to expand past the stub. If it had been verifiable, a mention in the longevity article would have been sufficient. And just to make matters worse, isn't the picture a copyvio? Rossami (talk) 01:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, it's unverified in the sense that we don't know if she's really that old. But then again, many, many totally encyclopedic things have such mysteries associated with them. The question should be whether it's verifiable in the sense that: is there such a woman who is claimed to be that age? And the answer to that is plainly yes, considering the news reports about her. And that's enough for me, personally, to consider her notable. If I've heard about her here in the U.S., then I have to assume she's a lot more famous in Brazil. Everyking 02:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite/clean. I guess there's not a lot of info on her, but she seems notable and the article needs to be one of a higher quality. Bratsche (talk) 19:37, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Why didn't this Vfd template get closed even though 2 weeks have gone by?? Georgia guy 17:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • VfD closing is running a bit slow right now. --Carnildo 21:13, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maria_Olivia_da_Silva&oldid=1087575237"