Deletion of María Díaz Cortés (2nd nomination)

Comment: I love the irrationality of the arguments for deleting arguments about supercentenarians. The nom says it's an "unremarkable longevity claim", while one voter says "living to 117 is extremely unlikely"! If she really was 117 years and 11 days old when she died, she would not have been the oldest person ever, as two verified supercentenarians have lived for longer. 117 is both possible, and remarkable. As for having a child at 44 being "a real miracle", no, it is quite possible, as per the Wikipedia article on Maternal age, "Having children later was not exceptional in the past, when families were larger and women often continued bearing children until the end of their reproductive age." But if it was a real miracle, why wouldn't that be notable? Looking at the actual guidelines for notability, I do not find much coverage - one report of her 116th birthday, reports of her death, and one paragraph in one book. So it looks to me as though she does not meet , whether or not her claimed age was true
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per Legacypac. This poorly sourced article fails , , and . There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable, and this  is not needed. I also agree that editors should use discretion and weigh the reasonableness of such a claim when faced with obvious age deception
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BIO1E||WP:NOPAGE||WP:PERMASTUB)

Comment: Fails  and . There is nothing to say about her other than she was born, claimed age X and then died
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E||WP:NOPAGE)