Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parasram Gurjar

:{{la|Parasram Gurjar}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Parasram_Gurjar Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Parasram Gurjar}})

Aside from more specific considerations such as WP:1E (his 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. While it looks like there is a lot of coverage here, most of the references are clones or near-clones of two reports: 1) a claim that he was the world's oldest person and 2) his obituary a few months later. This means that he lacks the sustained coverage that would distinguish him 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 and thus no need for a standalone article. Canadian Paul 14:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Delete (or merge to wherever we put highly questionable claims). "According to his family, he was believed to be the oldest man in India..." On this we base articles? EEng 19:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
• Delete I am sure there are lots of people who lived long times unverifiably, but Wikipedia is based on verifiability. Arguably it is too positivist a project for the post-modern world we live in, but the other choice is utter chaos.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
• Delete as there are only claims here, no actual convincing parts of notability and substance, hence delete as there's simply a "perhaps the oldest" story here; it's best part of something else, not its own article, SwisterTwister talk 03:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per SwisterTwister's comments. Does not satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
• Keep The claim of notability is clear and the reliable and verifiable sources -- including national newspapers -- backs up that claim. The argument for deletion from the dreaded "utter chaos" is completely worthless BS. Alansohn (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Secondary sources mentioned here are obituaries, not enough to make it notable...Rameshnta909 (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Delete The coverage of this subject is very sparse. In a couple cases, the refs are essentially duplicates - one obit's facts lifted almost verbatim from one source and reprinted in another. Taken together, there simply is not sufficient coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Beyond that, the claim of longevity isn't backed by the reporting. When the best we can say in the encyclopedia is:
  
  "According to his family, he was believed to be the oldest man in India. He allegedly died at the age of 125..."
  and
  "The Medical Board of Madhya Pradesh has officially certified that Gurjar is more than 90 years old, although it could not certify that his age exceeded 90 years. The family... has written to... India Union Health Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad to make arrangements for verification of age of older people. Besides that, they have also written to the Guinness World Records..."
  
  then WP:NOPAGE applies.
  
  And while this is a very funny detail: "Shortly before his death, he asked his grandson... to fetch him some water from the Narmada river. After drinking the water, he collapsed and was hurriedly sent to Hamidia Hospital..." it's not really the stuff of an encyclopedia. David in DC (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.