Deletion of Johnson Parks (2nd nomination)

Comment: As being insubstantially different from the version that was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnson Parks|deleted previously over a decade ago. There are currently three sources, two of which are trivial mentions, and the third of which is an obituary - none of these sources establish the type of coverage that would satisfy 's requirement of multiple, non-trivial coverage in independent, third-party, |reliable sources. There's no Wikipedia policy or consensus that states that the oldest anything is automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards; Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Article alerts/Archive|numerous AfDs on the "oldest" individuals have been kept or deleted based on their individual merits. Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit was already included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia when this was first deleted 10+ years ago
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS)

Comment: As a non-notable supercentenarian. Two GRG tables and a one sentence mention in someone else's obituary does not make someone notable. Also given that these sources strain to pad the article with longevity trivia (oldest for 85 days, third oldest black man, etc) means that even if he was somehow notable, then  would almost certainly apply
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOPAGE)