Deletion of Jan Goossenaerts

Comment: Since it seems like |common outcomes of these types of articles is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People#Deletion_recommendations|to delete, as indicated by the Oldest People talk page, why would this one be different? I'm not talking about  here, I'm talking about common outcomes. We really need a policy for this type of article. &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:OUTCOMES||WP:OTHERSTUFF)

Comment: per SimaeseTurtle. It looks like the general notability guideline is met, unless someone can explain how  indicates it does not meet notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: While I fully agree, that's a discussion for another, as yet created, page. Here, we're just called upon to decide if Jan Goossenaerts is |notable. Once we're done (or contemporaneously if It Ain't Me Babe|someone is so moved,) someone can propose an addition to . This page is about one tree. The forest can and should be considered by a larger part of the community, in a more visible way than a single AfD about the oldest man on (or perhaps in) Europe
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:OUTCOMES)

Comment: As commented above, those 5 sources are mirrors of each other, and 4 of them are local newspapers. Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: just being the oldest person in a country isn't notable enough, and I note the paucity of non-mirrored sources.  I'm not seeing how it even meets , and kicking the heat to light ratio towards the former isn't helping the "keep" cause
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: to one of the lists per .  &nbsp
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: Simply being very old does not make one notable.   and  both certainly apply here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Ravenswing has a good point about , in his second sentence above. However, I think it's answered in the last bullet of that policy: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate |what Wikipedia is not
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOT)

Comment: because he has significant independent coverage in multiple reliable sources and so meets the , and  doesn't apply because there is no "event
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: The topic is  notable because it is covered in detail in numerous reliable sources and so passes .  The opinions above that extreme age is not notable are expressing a personal opinion rather than following the guideline and so violating |core policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NPOV)