Deletion of Sarah Knauss

Comment: Richard Arthur, if you don't want to appear rude, then stop alleging bad faith and using boldface type to make unfounded accusations of selective research. This one of several similar allegations which you have in the last few hours, and it's getting rather tedious. As I have stated umpteen times, my preference with most of the many articles on non-notable oldies would have been to merge them, and it was only when the mergers were reverted while notability was still not established that I brought them to AfD to allow for a consensus decision on their fate ''in those cases where I did not find references'' (I did find refs for ecample for http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virginia_Muise&diff=176841383&oldid=152501457 Virginia Muise, and added them to the article). As you will see if you look at the many other nominations, most of them have not so far been improve to meet notability thresholds.I provided in my nomination a direct link to the google search which I used in good faith, and on which I checked the first few pages. Well done finding more references, which is precisely what I asked to be done, but there is no need to be rude just because you found refs which I missed.However, I note that the references are less impressive than the list of 7 might suggest: http://www.grg.org/knauss119.htm  Morning Call and  http://www.supercentenarian.com/oldest/sarah-knauss.html BBC story are alleged copies of news articles (possibly copyvios), the http://slick.org/deathwatch/mailarchive/msg00607.html CNN story is an alleged copy of a news article in a mailing list archive, the http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,244425,00.html Guardian ref is a 46-word snippet, the http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-628287.html Washington Post story is almost identical to the BBC, suggesting that both are based on the same AP stories (which also the source of http://slick.org/deathwatch/mailarchive/msg00607.html the CNN story, though the http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=PI&s_site=philly&p_multi=PI&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB330E053133595&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM Philadelphia Inquirer article does appear substantive (1681 words according to Highbeam). If someone can actually dig out the full text of the articles, I think that notability may be established by PA+Inquirer, but I note that your list so far doesn't include the full text of any substantive article on its original website. At this point, I will withdraw the nomination to give interested  editors a chance to improve the article, but I hope that any further discussion can take place without further |personal attacks
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No personal attacks (WP:NPA)