Endorse- there was a well-argued nomination and two solid delete votes, with no opposition, so there is no way the discussion could have been closed any other way. ReykYO!21:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If some people were unaware of the AfD and those people have information which could have resulted in a different closure had the information been presented at AfD, then this could be a reason for relisting the article at AfD. However, I'm not convinced that the information presented at Talk:List of German supercentenarians would have changed the outcome of the discussion, so endorse the AfD closure. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nom was reasonable (though the copyright issue of a source was irrelevant), but the delete !votes were all basically "I don't like it" in the sense that they didn't address sourcing and instead focused on if the reason for coverage for things they think are important--not a policy-based reason for deletion. So we have a policy-based nomination with two non-policy-based supporting delete !votes. That said, the nom is correct, there don't appear to be multiple significant RSes, and so deletion appears to be the right outcome. If someone has more RSes about this person, _that_ would be a reason to have a DRV. But as it stands, endorseHobit (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
