Deletion of Sarah Knauss (3rd nomination)

Comment: The article is complete, referenced and obviously otable.  You are merely rehashing arguments that were heard (and better argued at the time) and rejected Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Knauss (2nd nomination
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: This article fails , , and . There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like her husband was a local Republican leader, how many wars she lived through, how many presidential administrations she lived through, etc. She lived. She avoided the Reaper longer then most. She died. In her own words, "So what?" Her name, life dates, and nationality are best handled on the five lists they already reside on. This  is not needed
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BIO1E||WP:NOPAGE||WP:PERMASTUB)

Comment: The several "keep" !votes saying that being very old is notable are not based in any policy (and are therefore likely to be ignored by the closing admin). In addition, in a sense the question of notability is moot, as  obviously applies. The little that's worth mentioning about this person can be included in the appropriate list article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOPAGE)

Comment: Meets GNG, and per NOPAGE there is plenty of context to provide information about this topic as a standalone, there is enough information in this article that to combine several articles of this length and depth would make the result unweildly, and sourcing is more than sufficient, passing GNG and all.  Wikipedia is a generalist encyclopedia and a specialist encyclopedia.  Yes, she is notable only because of her age, but that is notability nonetheless.  Wikipedia exists to provide encyclopedic information about topics of general and specialist interest.  This particular article is of general interest, there are many, many people beyond those who obsess over every supercentenarians who are interested in encyclopedic information about the oldest person ever from the United States.  The article violates nothing in 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: This is per , we have had two AfD discussions so far that have proven her notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP)

Comment: Those who refer to  ignore that being the second oldest human is something that is researched by many people. Wikipedia should provide the necessary facts for journalists and scholars. For scientists judging about a longevity claim, the personal dates of the person (not just birthday and age) are extremely important for judging about the reliability of a claim
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOPAGE)