Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeralean Talley

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as this seems the likely consensus and the current article seems currently acceptable (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeralean Talley

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable individual. Longevity alone does not confer notability. Fiddle Faddle 14:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. People known for longevity alone should get articles if their longevity is strong enough. An age like 115 is strong enough. An age like 90 is not. Georgia guy (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Coverage in reliable sources does equate to notability. —C.Fred (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Non-policy-based nomination, which appears to be based on I don't like it. The article is clearly notable WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Yet another non-policy based nomination from this user (see [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]). This individual clearly passes WP:GNG. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 06:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.