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. Clear consensus to delete. Any editor may create a redirect as part of the normal editing process. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alimihan Seyiti[edit]

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

One of a plethora of unsubstantiated claims of extreme longevity. Only 2 sources, both over 3 years old (thereby failing "ongoing notability" requirement), one of which casts doubt on the notability claim. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, WP:PERMASTUB and WP:NOPAGE. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If "ongoing notability" is some new requirement, then we are going to have to delete 99.999% of Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With birth records in much of the world spotty before 1900, and even in many places later, and destroyed in other cases, there are undoubtedly people who have lived over 110 years for whom we have no evidence of such. However this should not be seen as license to follow every weak story to create a new article on claims that lack any evidence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clear failure of WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E. Subject appears to only be "notable" for the claim of the WOP title as references are from August 2013 and Google search brings up nothing else. CommanderLinx (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources still report on her...they're just in Chinese. More can be added. --104.56.23.57 (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN of proof is on you to provide them. CommanderLinx (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

note - The IP address above has been blocked for ban evasion. CommanderLinx (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this nonsense. Unrelated query to DerbyCountyinNZ: what do you mean by "ongoing notability requirement"? E Eng 07:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NTEMP. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah, that's what I figured -- except what NTEMP says is, "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." If by "ongoing notability requirement" you mean "ongoing coverage requirement", there's no such thing. E Eng 07:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as regardless of actual longevity, there's still nothing actually suggesting, like with several of these, the necessary signs of solid independent notability as her own article thus delete. SwisterTwister talk 07:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Newspapers write about these people simply as human interest stories. Pburka (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per RAN1958 is fine, too. Pburka (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Longevity claims where his entry appears. The rule is not to delete when a valid target is available. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Particularly egregious longevity claim fancruft. Unsubstantiated claim, per nominator. Also, GNG, per the Commander. And John Pack Lambert speaks good sense. David in DC (talk) 15:27, 15 June 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.