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 and redirect to List of Swedish supercentenarians. Opinions are numerically divided, but the "delete"/"redirect" opinions are better grounded in policy and guidelines. With one or two exceptions, the "keep" opinions are arguing for the inherent notability of persons who have lived for very long. However, our guidelines (WP:BIO) do not provide for such assumed notability, and because this is a relatively frequent topic of discussion or contention, the absence of such guidelines can be taken to reflect projectwide consensus to not assume the notability of people just because they grew to be very old. The one or two remaining defensible "keep" opinions that make an argument based on the sources present are not enough to sway consensus against retention. Because none of the "redirect" opinions express or imply any interest in retaining the history in view of a possible future recreation (rather, the contrary), I interpret the consensus outcome of this discussion to be the deletion of a non-notable topic followed by a redirect, as in the recent case of Annie Butler.  Sandstein  21:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Astrid Zachrison[edit]

Astrid Zachrison (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)

This is a classic case of Permanent Stub. We know nothing but her name, birthdate and where she lived. If you look through the history and talk page there are even questions about what day she died on. The entire article is sourced to one local newspaper, Appropriately called The Local, suggesting the two short stories were simple local human interest stories of a WP:ROUTINE nature. Put her on a list and WP:NOPAGE the dear departed lady. Legacypac (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to Oldest people - Only a few of my searches found a few links so even then, there's simply not much for this one-time event. SwisterTwister talk 08:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - She was the longest-lived Swede ever. That, and the fact that she also happened to die on her birthday, are grounds enough for keeping the article. Also, her predecessor as longest-lived Swede ever, Elsa Moberg, also has an article. --Marbe166 (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the fact that she died on her birthday matter? Does dying on their birthday make them notable? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX. The solution may be to delete/redirect the Elsa Moberg article than keep this one. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you are more likely to die on your birthday then any other day, so that reduces notability. [1][2] Legacypac (talk) 10:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and/or Redirect to List of Swedish supercentenarians - Article tells us nothing of interest than what is already available in the various tables under Template:Longevity. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
• Redirect to appropriate list. The poster girl for WP:NOPAGE. EEng (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Even a redirect would be too much. DreamGuy (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with User:Marbe166. also, by this revision, I think lost a reason to delete this article.--Inception2010 (talk) 05:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

That added nothing of note, but rather confirmed she lived a long unremarkable life as a hpmemaker who did not even try to live long. Legacypac (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say that I appreciate that Inception's been adding ((spas)) to his/her own posts proactively, saving others the trouble of doing so. EEng (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NOPAGE. No encyclopedic material. Not even worth a merge or redirect. 07:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Yet another "Born, lived, had children, lived, had grand children, lived some more then died after a lot of living" article. While living to a ripe old age is impressive, not actually doing anything notable beyond that is not grounds for an article. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Blackmane (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Actually, I'm going to change my !vote to Delete and Redirect after some thought. There are enough sources to minimally satisfy notability, but the article certainly will not expand beyond a stub / start class article. No matter how in depth the coverage, unless the lady did something extraordinary in her life, beyond living over 100, there is little any article could say other than "born, lived, married, had children, had grand children, died." Blackmane (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the deletionists in this AfD seem to think that being the oldest person in a country and being a supercentarian is non-notable. But that is an opinion. The guidelines says otherwise. Period. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the notability guidelines does it say "being a supercentenarian makes you notable"? CommanderLinx (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter anyway, since the question at hand is WP:NOPAGE/WP:PERMASTUB, not notability. EEng (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Is someone notable because they are the oldest ever from a certain country? The majority of wikipedians say 'yes', however some say 'no'. Although there are no guidelines about it, in my opinion the answer is 'yes'. Petervermaelen (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Your comments are irrelevant because notability isn't the question on the table. It's WP:NOPAGE/WP:PERMASTUB. EEng (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article makes a rather clear claim of notability and backs up the claim with multiple reliable and verifiable sources with significant coverage about the subject necessary to create the article that is of typical size among our five million Wikipedia articles. The existence of corresponding articles in our Finnish, Russian and Swedish Wikipedia partners only adds further to evidence of support for notability by Wikipedia standards. Alansohn (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERLANGS, and if anything the Swedish version, in particular, confirms the WP:PERMASTUBiness, since this is a Swedish subject. EEng (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep She is the oldest person ever from all the Nordic countries.--153.151.83.197 (talk) 05:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

that is a little hard to believe given 1200 years of recorded history. Getting old is such a not a big deal that generally poor records of it were kept until just the last few years, and then only in a few countries of the world are there decent records. Legacypac (talk) 08:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Coverage in sources and an all-time national record-holder suggests she is notable. As for the "NOPAGE/PERMASTUB" arguments: why are the longevity biographies in particular under attack? I don't see how they are any different than an enormous number of short articles on minor sports stars, politicians, etc. The general rule of thumb is that if someone meets WP:GNG, they are worthy of a standalone article. These are all individual people, not characters in a TV show. Someone who is the oldest EVER person from a country deserves their own article. Just because you personally don't find anything worthwhile in the article doesn't mean that others don't. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

As WP:NOPAGE says,

Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic (WP:NOPAGE)

i.e. it's not about what the subject "deserves" but rather the best way of selecting and presenting information about the subject, for the reader's understanding. This isn't about what I or anyone else "personally" finds worthwhile, but a matter if editorial judgment: as with everything else in the history of the universe, we somehow have to decide what to leave in and what to leave out.

Longevity-related articles are being scrutinized because of the long history of abuse and disregard for WP policy and guidelines, as evidenced by the Arbcom case and the recent reimposition of discretionary sanctions. EEng (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And how is it a better way to present the information to just delete biographies? Firstly, these people are all individuals, having longevity in common, not part of a TV show, video game, etc. We don't just put all Olympic medal winners on to one page, we give them biography articles as well, because they're deemed sufficiently notable. Secondly, basic details (born, married, lived, died) are standard features in biographies. Sorry that you find it uninteresting, but it's not a reason to delete. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to take your own example, Olympic athletes tend to have lives which weave their developing talent together with the normal incidents of life -- upbringing, school, work. Almost all these people did nothing unusual until they were about 90, at which point they began the unusual activity of not dying. Other than that they typically have led lives of exemplary dullness, with little of any interest (or relevance to their longevity, for that matter). That's why the details of their lives are unimportant, unlike those of Olympic athletes. EEng (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

School? Work? BORING! DELETE IT ALL!-- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, in the case of a champion athlete, their early life is typically the context in which their athletic prowess was developed. EEng (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete then Redirect She was born. She married. Upon marrying she moved and became a housewife in her new town. She had a kid. After her husband died, she lived with the now-grown son and, eventually, in a nursing home. She died there on the same date as her birthday, 113 years prior. A bit of horserace material about the previous, world champion old person whose glorious reign ended when Zachrison ascended to the coveted Throne of Breathlonger. Her son said she did nothing special to stay breathing. Her own mom lived to be 90.
  
  Even if sourced, these facts do not amount to a stand-alone encyclopedia article.WP:ROUTINE, WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG It's precisely the sort of stuff that lead WP:PERMASTUB and WP:NOPAGE to counsel that the subject subject should be treated as an item in a list, with the name serving as a redirect term to the list. David in DC (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it's all information that would not be available if she was just included in a list, so you've just presented an argument for why WP:NOPAGE shouldn't apply. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Expand Astrid Zachrison is the oldest verified person ever from Sweden and the oldest person to ever have died in any of the Nordic countries. A comment such as "A bit of horserace material about the previous, world champion old person whose glorious reign ended when Zachrison ascended to the coveted Throne of Breathlonger", which was made by the above poster (David in DC) is downright insulting and clearly ageist. The most important thing regarding Mrs. Zachrison is not about who she married or how many children she had, it is that she is the oldest undisputed person ever from Sweden. This article should be expanded, deleting it is utter nonsense. 930310 (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
  • Insulting: The objected-to phrase is not directed at the long-lived subjects of the WOP suite of articles. It is directed at the longevity hobbyists who imagine that our long-lived brothers and sisters are participants in a longevity competition, replete with titles, record-holders, incumbent champions and record-breaking successors.
    Ageist: as the insult is not directed at people of any particular age, this accusation is unfounded. David in DC (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 930310, your sole reason for keeping this article (Oldest Swede) is conveniently displayed in the table at List of Swedish supercentenarians. So why do we need a standalone article when a "list of" tells us the important information (Name, age, country, Oldest Swede)? CommanderLinx (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sole reason for having an article on Frank Wykoff (3 Olympic gold medals) is displayed in List of multiple Olympic gold medalists. Guess he should be deleted too then? Oh wait, that's not how it works. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre comparison. Of course it's not how it works. Athletes have their own notability guidelines (see WP:NOLYMPICS and WP:NTRACK, athletes that competed in the Olympics are notable). While there's nothing in the guidelines that says "being a supercentenarian makes you notable". Also WP:WAX and as stated, there is still the WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB issues.CommanderLinx (talk) 01:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A biography serves to flesh out the details beyond what a list does. One purpose of Wikipedia is to allow the user to follow wiki-links for more information on their topic of interest. This woman was Sweden's oldest ever person and was covered in numerous reliable sources... she certainly seems to meet WP:GNG. Typically on Wikipedia, individual people who are notable as individuals have their own article. The arguments here are not to do with WP:NOPAGE, it's to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject died at at 113 which is young compared to this spray old lady in China [3] who is 127. Sweden has a tiny population to China, so why draw a record from a small country? Where is the article on the Oldest person in Andorra or Oldest person in Southern California? Legacypac (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@David in DC: Stop with the strawman arguments. No one is claiming it's a competition. And actually, Guinness World Records award the title of World's oldest person. It is a title. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really?! Then why the stubborn attachment to succession boxes, listing previous "title holder's" and their immediate predecessor and successor. Why the focus in the text on the date old person X surpassed old person y to become the oldest person ever from Botswana, Hong Kong or Antigua. Few of these "titles" are bestowed by Guinness. The only people keeping track of these minutiae are hobbyists. Longevity is a fit topic for an encyclopedia. Bios of individual long-lived people should be restricted to those who've done something notable beyong having an expiration date that surpasses some of their oldest peers. David in DC (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac Firstly, it's not proven that that woman was 127. Secondly, Sweden is a significantly large country, 113 is a remarkable age, and she is the ALL-TIME record-holder. Even after death, she remains as the country's oldest ever person. That's an ongoing claim to notability. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find the response of Legacypac a form of discrimination. A big country is in his opinion more important than a small country? Just my two cents Petervermaelen (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not my point. The hobbyists reject most Chinese claims to long life. Yet they arbitrarily segment old people into record holders for selected countries, even though long life has only tangential relationships to location. Legacypac (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If tomorrow someone aged 110+ from China, submits proof they are the age claimed, the claim would not be rejected at all. The truth is that most birth records of people from China did not survive. This may be a shock to most people, but so far no supercentenarian from China was able to truly proof they are the age claimed. Petervermaelen (talk) 07:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to relevant list per WP:NOPAGE and PERMASTUB. There's never going to be enough here for a standalone article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Expand with the Swedish language sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I finally figured out what is remarkable about these people - they managed to live over 100 years without doing anything important enough to warrant meaningful coverage in newspapers or books or TV. That IS an achievement record for managing to be so NOT notable for so long, so I suggest we make a list of them someplace to celebrate their achievement of not being notable. Legacypac (talk) 10:32, 5 December 2015 (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.