Deletion of List of the verified oldest people

Comment: Im sorry, but there is no way this is going to be deleted with the current consensus, a merger may be in order for some of the lists but this isn't the place for it. A |trout may also be in order
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Whacking with a wet trout (WP:TROUT)

Comment: Does not duplicate the other articles, as they only show the oldest 10 living people, omitting a large number of notable people from the top 100.. Nom's argument that "verified" means "verified by the Gerontological Research Group" is irrelevant, as one can add other sources if desired; it just happens to be the case that the Gerontological Research Group is one of the most reliable sources in existence. Nominator's argument seems very weak; in fact this deserves a borderline  keep IMO
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: Read the opening line in this article: "''This is a list of the world's verified oldest people, verified to the standards of an international body widely recognized for specific expertise in longevity research, such as the Gerontology Research Group or Guinness World Records.''" ---> The verifying body does NOT have to be the GRG. It just so happens that, as of the present moment, there isn't another organisation which is as widely recognised (although others do exist). But the idea that - because this article is referenced to just that source - it should be deleted is ridiculous. There's nothing wrong with referencing an authoritative body, we see this elsewhere on Wikipedia. An article like this is something likely to be of great interest to many people so should definitely remain, but it should only be a list of people whose ages are proven to be true, in line with  - otherwise, we could have biblical claims listed here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:VALID)