The result was no consensus. Verifiability seems to be no longer contested, and we have no consensus as to notability, so default to keep. Sandstein 17:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person. Only reference is an unreliable blog. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.grg.org/Adams/E.HTM
adding that as a source might be COI, but others could find it. Note the claimed age is born in 1895, but the 1896 record comes from census data.Ryoung122 21:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Ryoung122. 74.249.149.228 (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/state-local/at-114-one-of-texas-supercentenarians-dies-1.949307 There is a source. 65.81.247.9 (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The guidelines are fairly implicit and her longevity is noteworthy and if she keeps living and those ahead of her on the list keep dying, she can end up higher in the ranks and garner further notability. Besides the fact that this isn't a paper encyclopedia and that the guidelines seem to indicate that she classifies as being noteworthy, I've found a few more sources for her [2][3] if it helps KirkCliff2 (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong to say her biography would be the same if she died at 90, if she died at 90 she wouldn't be in the top ten and she wouldn't be Texas' oldest person. 74.249.149.87 (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read that part, and if she didn't continue living she wouldn't be in the top ten and she wouldn't be the oldest person in Texas.67.33.119.28 (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]