Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khasako Dzugayev
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Coredesat 05:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Khasako Dzugayev
Unreferenced short stub on a man who lived to about 110 years old. A google search threw up nothing in reliable sources, so unless more refs can be found he fails WP:BIO. Dzugayev is already listed in both National longevity recordholders and in Oldest people, which is quite sufficient when there is nothing to say about him other than date of birth and date last known to be alive, so I suggest deletion. An article on Dzugayev can of course be recreated if sufficient coverage is found in reliable sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, I agree with the nom, especially that an article could be recreated if coverage is found in suitable sources. Cirt (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC).
- Delete, non-notable.Osli73 (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep When I first say this name in the oldest people article (no idea who this person was) I did a search in WOP group and returned no results. When I asked around about this guy, I was told he was in some Guinness book. Whomever created this article did an extremely bad job at it, and if this article got deleted, the article creator probably got what he deserved - for leaving this a super stub. Couldn't even mention what Guinness book he was in. If you're not going to leave references or citations, at least mention the off-line source in the article itself. Neal (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC).
- Neal, I'm puzzled that your !vote is to "keep", but your arguments are those for a strong delete. Did you really mean "keep"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No reliable sources are found in a Google search. As stated by the nom, a well-written, well-sourced article can be re-created later. — Wenli (reply here) 02:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to National longevity recordholders#Russia. Nothing to say about him at the moment, and editors should have reliable, non-trivial sources in hand before starting articles, not afterwards. Googling in the Cyrillic alphabet for "Хасако Дзугаев" [1] or "Х. Дзугаев" [2] gives 7 not-particularly-useful hits; even this article by his grandson [3] only devotes a few words to him --- though it does give one new piece of information, a claim that he lived to 115, a factoid which I already added to National longevity recordholders and oldest people. A Google search of course is a piss-poor measure of notability for an Ossetian guy who lived in the last two centuries, and he might be covered in old newspapers decaying in Russian provincial libraries somewhere, but if even your own grandson won't say more than one sentence about you ... cab (talk) 03:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The Soviet Union had numerous bogus persons who were supposed to be really old. Could this be one? "his age cannot be fully verified without knowing his exact date of death." Can his birth be verified, and can the person who was alive in his old age be proved to be the same person? Fails WP:V due to lack of any references. Also fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Edison (talk) 07:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Wikipedia editors are not the experts in trying to decide which claims are bogus and which are not. Given that the claim is repeated at least by the Gerontology Research Group on the basis of the International Committee on Supercentenarians [4], it can be considered verified, unless you consider that they fall outside the bounds of reliable sources. So I want to ask, why is a redirect not appropriate in this case? Thanks, cab (talk) 07:20, 14 December 2007 (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.
