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 no consensus. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bir Narayan Chaudhary (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)

A longevity claimant about whom almost nothing is known. The few sources on him exclusively discuss his purported age and tell us almost nothing about him, and the overlinking in this article is a failed effort to puff this up. Such details are best handled in a list or table entry on the Longevity myths article. There's WP:NOPAGE here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article fails WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:NOPAGE. The article says very little about this obvious fraudster. He scammed some media coverage and honors from a king, but the article doesn't say much else about him. Maybe deserves a mention at Longevity myths, but nothing more. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there are lots of unsubstantiated age claims. We need better sourcing to make articles on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - One of those who were known only for claiming themselves to be oldest. This is similar to other few recently nominated articles. These articles lack significant coverage especially when we take their extraordinary claims into account. We are not supposed to be a platform for righting great wrongs. Rzvas (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems to be like hoax and fake advertisement. Anyone can claim there age but government has not declared yet.Azkord (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This topic passes WP:GNG as it stands, with 2 pieces of substantive coverage in reliable sources(India Today[1] and AP[2]), plus a 103-word obit[3] in the LA Times (also a reliable source). As usual, the nominator @The Blade of the Northern Lights makes no claim to have done any of the required WP:BEFORE research to see if there is more coverage, let alone identify possible sources in Nepal which are unlikely to show on a google search.

I note that the nominator does comment on notability, so I hope that is accepted. Instead, the nomination asserts that this a longevity claimant about whom almost nothing is known and few sources on him exclusively discuss his purported age and tell us almost nothing about him. Sadly, both those central pillars of the nomination are blatantly false, because the 1558-word India Today article Being the oldest-ever is a record Bir Narayan Chaudhary neither wants nor understands goes into considerable detail about his life, and interestingly about how he felt about his claimed longevity. (Much like a Struldbrugg, it seems).

The falsity of those central planks would have been been evident to the nominator if they had even examined the existing sources before nominating, as they should have done pr WP:BEFORE. I trust that this was not an intentional deceit, and I hope that the nominator will demonstrate their good faith applying strikeout to these false claims in the nomination.

The invocation by @Newshunter12 of WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTINHERITED is also misplaced. This topic is notable because of a single attribute, whereas WP:BIO1E is about a single event ... and any topic which meets GNG is not claiming inherited notability. So those arguments should be discounted.

Similarly, the veracity or otherwise of Chaudhary's claims does not remove his notability; it merely changes the ways in which the article is written and categorised. Per WP:EXTRAORDINARY, "any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources", and this article is deficient in that it does not even mention the lack of verification. However, that is grounds for improving the article, not for deleting it.

That leaves us solely with WP:NOPAGE. Nothing in that guideline recommends deleting an article which satisfies GNG. There is no precedent in any other topic area for the systematic merger of articles on notable people to a list.

I am concerned that this is another in a series of XFD nominations prepared at WT:LONGEVITY#AfDs_of_individual_biographies and pursued as a tag-team by members of that project on the basis of what I can most kindly describe as severe misunderstandings of most of the policies and guidelines which they cite. The members of that project appear to have agreed among themselves that articles on people notable for longevity are inherently and axiomatically "cruft", and that GNG is insufficient. They have no policy basis for doing so, and appear to have decided that their own overt hostility to the topic should override the editorial judgement of respected major news sources. That is blatant POV-pushing, and it is just as incompatible with Wikipedia's core policy of WP:NPOV as the inverse view pushed by of the fans of the Gerontology Research Group (GRG) that the mere fact of longevity create a bypass around WP:GNG.

I have supported the deletion or merger of articles on non-notable supercentenarians, and I will continue to do so .. but this is different. This is part of a systematic campaign to eliminate articles on demonstrably notable supercentenarians, which extends even to WP:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Hughes (supercentenarian). WP:LONGEVITY's cleanup campaign has taken a wrong turn into organised disruption.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's 3 news articles. I, anyway, don't see that as evidence of sustained coverage. Furthermore, they tell us... he lived for some time, had kids, and died. Where's the page? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That page is offline. Nepal is still largely relied upon offline media sources such as newspapers. see WP:BIAS

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. "Man Dies at Reported Age of 141". Associated Press Archives. AP. 21 April 1998. Retrieved 12 December 2014.
  2. Thapa, Vijay Jung (15 October 1996). "Being the oldest-ever is a record Bir Naryahan Chaudhary neither wants nor understands". India Today. Retrieved 12 December 2014.
  3. "Bir Narayan Chaudhary, 141; Nepal's Oldest Man". LA Times. 24 April 1998. Retrieved 12 December 2014.
  4. The India Today article verifies that Bir Narayan Chaudhary has received television coverage. "After recent articles and coverage from Nepal TV, today a stream of visitors line up to gawk at Chaudhary."
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bir Narayan Chaudhary to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The Associated Press article provides significant coverage of the subject. The India Today magazine article provides 1,552 words of coverage about the subject.

  Bir Narayan Chaudhary is a Nepali man. India Today is based in India. That an Indian magazine printed 1,552 words about Bir Narayan Chaudhary is substantial international coverage and strongly establishes he is notable.

  Cunard (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT. Another longevitycruft article that presents farfetched accounts of extreme old age with minimal skepticism. Wikipedia should not be uncritically reporting obvious falsehoods. Reyk _YO! 10:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:TNT again. The essay doesnt say what you appear to be using it for. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did. It does. Don't be condescending. Reyk _YO! 12:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, noting that WP:TNT redirects to essay WP:Blow it up and start over which is not a Wikipedia deletion policy. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are many delete votes here, which appear to be clearly prejudiced and feigning ignorance about the coverage in reliable media. It is not our job to decide if this is falsehood, that is the job of newspapers and reliable media.--DBigXrayᗙ 11:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. India Today: Being the oldest-ever is a record Bir Narayan Chaudhary neither wants nor understands This, detailed coverage in the widely published magazine, India today is reliable, significant and independent coverage. It also notes that subject got coverage in newspapers and TV media.
2. Secrets of the What is it Like to Live for a Century and Which of Us Will Survive to Find Out?, By John Withington Reaktion Books, 2017 also covers the subject.

These sources in accordance with other arguments put by User:BrownHairedGirl and User:Cunard make a convincing pitch to keep this article based on GNG. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• To address the WP:TNT concerns, I added these two sentences to the lead paragraph:

  Bir was unable to substantiate his longevity claims with documentation. Since he did not have a birth certificate, The Guinness Book of Records did not identify him as the oldest person in the world.

  Cunard (talk) 08:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are sufficient reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing, but the article is not about the claim per se. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2018 (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.