Deletion of Gertrude Weaver (2nd nomination)

Comment: Clearly notable  with with articles in the ''Washington Post'' and ''The Guardian'' demonstrating national and international notability. The argument for deletion is "Consists entirely of longevity fancruft", but the contents of the article is from the ''Washington Post'' etc. The reason we have criteria for notability is you can't build and encyclopedia on Wikipedia:I just don't like it|I just don't like it arguments or I like it arguments. -- Unsigned comment by someone
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I don't find much coverage of her - even when she became the oldest American, it was reported nationally in the US, but using a single Associated Press report, so she doesn't meet : "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually ''independent of each other'', and independent of the subject." Other than that, coverage seems mostly to be local. There is the ''Time'' article, but still not ''multiple'' sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: This article blatantly fails , ,  and . There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like her health history, her family tree, standard longevity secret, and glorification of claimed records. Her name, life dates, and nationality are best handled on the four lists they already reside on. This  is not needed
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BIO1E||WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:NOPAGE||WP:PERMASTUB)