Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saro Dursun


 * 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   redirect to List of living supercentenarians. The consensus is that the subject is not notable, (either because she fails WP:GNG and is not inherently notable, or she fails WP:BLP1E. However, no reason is presented why a redirect wouldn't be sensible. I'll leave it to someone to add Dursun to the appropriate place on List of living supercentenarians, and then we'll need to amend the redirect if an when she dies. Mkativerata (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Saro Dursun

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No evidence of non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable sources as required by WP:N. Her alleged notability here seem to be (to my understanding at least) that she might be the oldest person in Sweden, but maybe not because her age is in doubt, and I don't really see that as meeting anything in WP:BIO. Canadian  Paul  22:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Being the oldest living person in Sweden is a credible claim to notability, if it's true. The only source that the article provides doesn't list her by name.  However, I've found one source that does here.  One source is not enough for the GNG, even if it's reliable (and I have my doubts).  And this is a BLP so we need to take extra care.  Because there is a source, I'll go with redirect to List of living supercentenarians rather than delete.— S Marshall  T/C 23:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This article has four sentences. The first is "Saro Dursun (born June 1, 1899) is probably currently the oldest living supercentenarian in Sweden." Any article about a living person whose lede topic sentence starts out telling the reader that the person is probably something, without even citing a source for this non-fact, fails good faith deletion analysis. The second sentence tells the reader she was born in Turkey. Again, no source offered. It's not derogatory, but it's also not particularly interesting about someone who's probably the oldest person someplace else. The last two sentences aren't even primarily about the subject of the article.  "Astrid Zachrison was the earlier oldest known person in Sweden but died on 15 May 2008. Dursun's birth date, however, is in doubt." I can't read Swedish, but even if the footnoted source says everything in the these last two sentences, so what? Outside of a hobbyist's interest in longevevity "record-holders", what on earth is encyclopedic about any of this? I oppose a redirect for someone who might (or might not) be the oldest person in a single European country. I wouldn't be moved to DELREV if this AfD resulted in a redirect, but I fear that solution would be mostly to assuage the feelings of the tenders of the longevity WP:WALLEDGARDEN rather than for any encyclopedic reason. David in DC (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The Swedish language article is very slightly more informative, giving where she moved to from Turkey and the 'fact' that she might be the oldest Turkish-born person alive as well as the oldest in Sweden. There are two different references cited there; as might be expected, both are in Swedish. Peridon (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per GNG and WT:WOP. Single foreign source is not significant coverage, nor multiple independent reliable sources; nor does article assert notability, per David. Would be proddable except for objection of article creator. Another one that was not tagged to WP:WOP and that Ryoung122 doesn't care to defend either. Good find by CP. JJB 03:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The two Google news results that appear, seem notable. I ran them through Google translator.  and reading the summaries, they are about this person, and how old they are.   D r e a m Focus  10:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Umm, all sources are local and about other people, Dursun is mentioned insignificantly in passing, reliability is not settled, and nothing establishes notability. Article's source expressen.se about Zachrison doesn't mention Dursun. Marshall's source hd.se is 8 sentences about Mikaelsson with 1 passing Dursun ref. Google's 2 sources sydostran.se and svt.se are 16 and 6 sentences, about Sokjer-Petersen and Mikaelsson, each with 1 passing Dursun ref. When I've been on the other side of AFDs I could never pass GNG with that little. JJB 14:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   yak 14:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of living supercentenarians. A brief mention there is sufficient.  The only notable thing about this person is their age (WP:BLP1E).  It would not be possible to write anything more than a permastub about how this person is very old.  Snotty Wong   yak 14:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect Snottywong is completely right, classic example of BLP1E. --Crusio (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect, as suggest above. No Dream Focus, bare mention in a couple of articles does not "seem notable" (that would require "significant coverage"), it rather seems to be either a blatant misrepresentation of the extent of the sources or a blatant misrepresentation of notability guidelines. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment What makes this article any different than the Astrid Zachrison one? I fail to see the difference(s). The Saro Dursun article is about a person who is believed to be Sweden's currently oldest living person. The fact that her claimed age is disputed IMO doesn't mean she's not notable. Just see the Sahan Dosova article for example. Hey  Mid  (contribs) 20:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply Heymid, thanks for your work on this, but Dursun got caught in the crosshairs of a WikiProject attempt to define WT:WOP and consistent notability and sourceability criteria. It appears project commenters agree that there is no broad "inherent notability" rule saying that all oldest-in-country claimants are automatically notable; WP:GNG applies (also BLP1E). Zachrison's article has six .se linked articles, which I assume are about the article's subject rather than someone else, not counting the unlinked and longevity-based sources. Since they are all local, I'd still argue that the criteria indicate merging Zachrison to a countryfied list (not outright deletion), but, judging from the high-chaos AFD of Jan Goossenaerts, this is not a consensus view yet. However, I believe there is a consensus established at the project link for deleting an article like Dursun, GWR-unverified, with only 3 trivial local mentions. I grant that sourcing may change. See also my link above for Ryoung122's view some years back. JJB 21:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I should realize that just because an article is already at another Wikipedia project doesn't mean it meets the notability requirements for articles at the English Wikipedia. Hey  Mid  (contribs) 21:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply*Being the oldest anything isn't really enough. WP:BLP1E justifies a redirect in some longevity cases, but not a freestanding article. Also, the oldness has to be found in reliable sources. In any event, "believed to be the oldest" something is not inherently notable. I speak no Swedish, but I've looked at the Zachrison page and I agree with you. It looks as deletable as this one. But WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS counsels that we shouldn't keep this bad article just because there's a similar bad article. There are a lot of similar articles. David in DC (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - the status of being oldest in the country, and the last left from another century seems sufficient to me, given the multiple coverage in independent sources. With this in mind it's not a clear-cut BLP1E case to me. I fail to understand the complaining about reliable sources as such, since there is a birth date from the official population register. The uncertainty of the date is related to her being an immigrant born in a country (the Ottoman Empire) which at that time didn't have population records up to the standards of some other countries, and therefore not an argument against notability. Tomas e (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the point - the date recorded in Sweden for her isn't reliable - it is presumably given by her (or a parent, depending on circumstances) when she arrived in Sweden. It's as reliable as a personal blog or a Hollywood agent. There's not even info given on when this move occurred. Peridon (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How is Sahan Dosova any different, then? If an unconfirmed birth date is a reason to delete an article, I can point out that any person that looks like a supercentenarian can claim they are 130 years old. What makes that article any different than the Saro Dursun one? Hey  Mid  (contribs) 20:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It probably isn't. Needs tagging if it's as bad. Peridon (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not much better, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS... At least there's a mention of her being 47 in a census. Females tend to add a couple of years in their teens, and from 75 onwards too. Around 47, they tend to subtract.... Peridon (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So your own WP:OR belong here but not a birth date from the population register. Aren't you being slightly ridiculous. Tomas e (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tomas e, Peridon is correct in precluding arguments from OTHERSTUFF. I add that Dosova has two reliable sources, which is barrel-scraping and for me would move the article (sourceable content only) to a minibio similar to Zachrison above. I believe this is consistent with WP:WOP guidance, but some editors have refused to either accept or edit the guidance. Dursun's article today still fails GNG and WOP guidance in that significant coverage in independent reliable sources has not been proven, so it's still a delete, or a redirect if rescue succeeds. JJB 17:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.