Deletion of Antonia Gerena Rivera (2nd nomination)

Comment: as discussed in the first AfD nomination for this article, and many other AfD's regarding articles on people that are notable for longevity. Longevity of life is not a single event; many sources on longevity cite events that have occurred during longevity, such as 114th birthdays, etc - ''these'' are single events. Therefore, this article subject does not qualify for . Also, it is important to note that people have been citing  - this is ''different'' than  and only used for BLP articles, which does not apply here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E||WP:BLP1E||WP:1E)

Comment: Lack of reliable, independent, signifiant coverage: The Gerontology Research Group sources are a research organization publishing their findings on their own website. Similar to an award's website publishing their winners. We need other organizations reporting their information. But "there has been virtually no news coverage of this woman's existence" http://www.grg.org/main.html#AGRivera_115, another finding by the same organization more important than her age or ethnicity. GRG only deals with supercentenarians. Simply being one, or being "oldest..." does not guarantee an article on Wikipedia (similar recent AfDs not keep'd: rticles for deletion/Colombe Benoît-Leclerc, rticles for deletion/Bob Taggart (2nd nomination), rticles for deletion/Koto Okubo (2nd nomination), rticles for deletion/Eudoxie Baboul...). Also how could these two data tables http://www.grg.org/Adams/E.HTM http://www.grg.org/Adams/TableE.html possibly qualify as signifiant coverage
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A||WP:A||WP:A||WP:A)

Comment: While  and  apply, it appears the standard has been set that "oldest" in a valid category does in fact establish a thin enough amount of notability to count for inclusion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:GNG)

Comment: WP:BLP1E subject only known for longevity and , no significant coverage in reliable sources. One of the sources even states there is virtually no media coverage. The sources used don't help either. 1 is a name and residence (1 power point slide of about 50+), 2 and 3 are a listing in a table, 4 is for her 115th birthday (note: this source says there is virtually no news coverage on her) and the last is an obituary. She is notable to be on a list, which she is on several
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: WP:NOPAGE. . There is nothing, and I do mean nothing, of encyclopedic value in the article.  It's nearly all "horse-race" reporting about a mythical aging contest. Human longevity is a fit (and important) topic for an encyclopedia to cover. But the mundane details of the everyday life of every long-lived person is not - and bloviation about their place jockeying for position in some fanciful race to hold a "title" or break a "record" is nonsensical and a little bit morbid.  Are users of this encyclopedia expected to be looking for information about which old person on which continent staved off the visit of the Angel of Death by 12 days or 7 months longer than which other old person?  There's a serious misapprehension evident in the !votes above about the meaning of the term "notability" on Wikipedia.  It's not as loose as the conversational meaning of the word.  Reasonable people can differ about whether a particular senior citizen is notable in this sense.  But "" is a term of art on Wikipedia, with a very specific definition. The General Notability Guidelines require non-trivial, significant coverage in multiple |reliable sources that are independent of one another and of the subject.  We don't have that here. We have a slideshow with a picture of the subject and an assertion of her age from a presentation by a longevity expert: ? We have a couple of links to Gerontology Research Group web pages: ? ? And we have a birthday article and an obit, with mundane details of the subject's life and some "horse race" data.? Any way you slice, dice, mince or mangle these "sources" you do not wind up with a bio appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia, at least not if you're following Wikipedia's rules
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:OR||WP:RS||WP:OR||WP:GNG||WP:notable)

Comment: a several editors have noted, the |nominator clearly did not do a simple online search for sources. Also, |well-established precedents favor keeping articles of extremely old super-centenarians
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:OUTCOMES)