Deletion of Elsie Thompson

Comment: Yeah, this has really become a fascinating article during this AfD. We now know that she was married, is white, and (not even mentioned in the article!) likes "chicken, salmon, coffee and cookies". Oh, and she sings hymns, almost forgot that. Yep, that really is the material we need to build an interesting article for this encyclopedia. No way all that important stuff would fit into a list. And don't forget that supercentenarians are ''studied'' by real ''scientists'' (never mind that the article on Stephen Coles only shows us some lists of oldest old people in a -rather fringy- journal). Am I being sarcastic? Yes, I'm afraid I am, but I think that many people participating in this discussion here are too much in a mood of seeing this as a race with somebody being the winner as opposed to serious encyclopedia-building. In addition, the only sources that we have up till now are, as  calls it, " minor news stories". Yes, they're in a |reliable source (''Tampa Bay Times''), but these are indeed decidedly minor stories, so whichever way you turn it, this does not meet 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: article needs definite improvement).  The nom stated "Classical case of ".  shows how  is "often misapplied in deletion discussions".  First, the article definitely can be beefed up with more details about her. To avoid COI, I work for Gerontology Research Group and I'm only here as a Wikipedia editor with my own personal concern about this AfD.  Second, I'm uncertain how many times Elsie Thompson has been interviewed, but she has been interviewed by multiple sources for different birthday events; that is not one event, which meets .  The nom did not explain why this fails .  I unfortunately don't have them handy and I hope other Wikipedia editors can provide the necessary sources and citations to improve this article.  Like a particular tennis event in where one played while 8th ranked in the world, a birthday event in where one is the 8th ranked in the world is *each* considered one separate event.  After all, in neither case, the person doesn't maintain the same "status/rank" over time.  Just because tennis is covered internationally on a much bigger scale than human longevity, they both still should deserve the same treatment. Like  points out at the end, the status can change over time and it's a very fair assumption that regarding human longevity events, the older the person continue to live, the profile increases from medium to high (if some considers this as a medium profile right now).  "To go on living, you don't actually do anything, it happens to you" shows a lack of understanding in why humans are fascinated to find encyclopedic information about shortest people, tallest people, and oldest people in general.  Being the shortest adult in the world "just happens to them", but they still get notable because of that nonetheless.  Also, "having an interesting life" is not a requirement to keep a biography article alive.  I agree with DerbyCountyinNZ that the List of supercentenarians from the United States is already quite long so I also don't support a re-direct there.  Instead, a keep of this article with improvements should be the way to go.  Of course, if there are no further improvements, then I would concur with the consensus whatever that may be.  Special:rContributions/CalvinTy|'''Calvin
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:LOWPROFILE||WP:BLP1E||WP:GNG||WP:GNG||WP:LOWPROFILE)

Comment: as one of numerous supercentenarian  cases (being very old is the "one event" not each birthday) not meeting . I don't even really think it's worth a redirect, because that just encourages people to revert these articles back to an article once they think that no one is looking (see the history of Koto Okubo for example), but a redirect would be better than keeping the article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:N)