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. Disregarding the "No compliance with WP: Before" argument because that does not address the arguments for deletion.  Sandstein  06:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna Barysevich (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)

"claimed to be the world's oldest person, having allegedly been born in 1888 ... It seems the only evidence of her age is her passport" etc etc. Apparently non-notable, but even if notable, dearth of worthwhile information demands redirect to appropriate list, per WP:PERMASTUB, WP:NOPAGE. EEng (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article as we have needs further reliable and verifiable sources. Far more detailed biographies about Barysevich exist in versions of this article in the Belarussian, Polish and Russian versions of this article. The failure here seems to be a misguided effort to achieve absolute WP:TRUTH, when in fact our job in Wikipedia is to demonstrate verifiability. The claim as world's oldest person has been widely covered, and that's what our job is here. Alansohn (talk) 05:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERLANGS. CommanderLinx (talk) 08:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't clear for those participating. The articles in other languages include material and sources that can be ported into this article, which should be used to provide the expansion necessary to meet the demands of even the most rabid deletionist. Alansohn (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to draftspace This is literally nothing here beyond "this person allegedly was born on date X" and unsourced statements about whether she contacted Guinness, what her sources are and the like. Arguably, there's more detail to make an article out of Birth date of Hanna Barysevich rather than this page but that's beyond ridiculous. Deletion isn't indefinite, I'd suggest asking for editors who speak those languages (or just Google translate with a lot of double-checking) to start on a draft as a translation of the Russian version shows enough for a WP:GNG claim. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The existence of pages on other wikis is totally irrelevant to our inquiry. Reading the text, I'm struck by the fact that there is a sole reference, but the article features competing claims. From whence do they come? There is quite clearly no WP:SIGCOV in multiple, independent reliable sources evident here. The WP:WALLEDGARDEN of longevity articles needs to be pruned back so that it starts getting closer to compliance with the rules, policies and guidelines that govern our collaboration in creating an encyclopedia. Reflexive opposition to deleting even such clear embarrassments to the project as this thoroughly out-of-policy stub is baffling. David in DC (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and forget with that many unverified questionable "facts" how can we be serious about this. We know a lot more about ISIL leaders with fake names. Legacypac (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No compliance with WP: Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What part of BEFORE would that be? EEng (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I was able to find this source [1] and this source [2]. Passes GNG we can add information to warrant a standalone article. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not in question, so what does this have to do with anything? EEng (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly notable, converting to nothing but a list entry diminishes the usability of the encyclopedia. Merging would result in clutter. A stand-alone page is definitely what we need for this and similar persons. Jacona (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This version, removed as likely copyvio, is much more informative. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hanna_Barysevich&oldid=29335963 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 14:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails NOPAGE, SIGCOV, GNG. Minimal, vague, trivial coverage does not justify a stand-alone Wiki article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect This article has few sources and concerns a person with a claimed, but not proven, age. Article could be moved to a thread about supercentenarian claims. 930310 (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete frankly as there's simply hardly even much here, nothing to suggest a better article. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. She has only received coverage about her age, and only a brief flurry of reports around the time she died. Longevity does not automatically imply notability. Pburka (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Alternatively, delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Pburka (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Soft delete because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Stub of original research; nobody seems willing to translate the version on the Polish Wikipedia. Esquivalience ^t 00:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:TOOLITTLE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No expansion opportunity; does not meet WP:GNG; WP:NOPAGE, WP:NOTNEWS. Apparently, there is an article on the Polish Wikipedia about the subject, but nobody wants to translate it or expand it using the Polish version. Esquivalience ^t 21:52, 3 January 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.