Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wook Kundor

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. Michig (talk) 09:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wook Kundor

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Thoroughly unremarkable and stunningly implausible longevity claim. This borders on self-parody, almost the entire "article" consists of some truly bizarre marital issues (with far more credulous reporting than is warranted, Elizabeth Taylor had nothing on this lady!). There's WP:NOPAGE here, if this is really notable enough for a mention anywhere it's best handled on the Longevity claims article in a list. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:BIO1E and WP:NOPAGE. She belongs on the list at Longevity claims, but marital problems are WP:ROUTINE, even though her situation certainly has its own unique flavor. There is not enough to say about her of substance to justify a standalone article. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One of those who were known only for claiming themselves to be oldest or very old. This is similar to other few recently nominated articles. These subjects lack significant coverage especially when we take their extraordinary claims into account. Rzvas (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BLP1E/BLP2E lacking in-depth coverage. Mainly covered for her marriage at age 104 and 107 - same coverage is rehashed in a few books. Coverage is not INDEPTH. Possibly merge to an article on bizarre marriages if we have one - but can't think of target - and this is rather gossipy. Icewhiz (talk) 16:37, 10 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.