Deletion of Sant Kaur Bajwa (2nd nomination)

Comment: per  multiple reliable sources. We don't care about the truth of the 115-year claim, we only care if the topic is notable, which by GNG means it has been covered in multiple reliable sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Yes, one ''could'' argue that Sant Kaur Bajwa has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and that she would therefore pass . But taking a closer look at this guideline, one finds that not only the mere existence of media coverage is demanded, but also '''encyclopedic suitability''' of the subject in question. And I dare say that this is not met here: Just ''claiming'' to be very old, without a definite proof, is not sufficient (also because of ). Please note that |Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This means that being featured in some kind of a news source does not automatically call for a Wikipedia article. All coverage is about her death, so that one could further argue that she is only notable for |one event (dunno if "death" is applicable here, though). In any case  also comes to mind: There has not been any ''ongoing'' news coverage; what we are talking about here is a relatively short news spike. To sum it up, even though there are reasonable sources, she should not be included into Wikipedia because there is just no "raison d'être
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:V||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BLP1E||WP:EVENT)

Comment: The subject clearly does pass . However, the statement of  states that "Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria ... such as those listed in What Wikipedia is not." More precisely, the subject in this case does not pass , as there is no evidence of there being coverage beyond the context of a single event, being her death. '''069952497a
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:BASIC||WP:NOTNEWS)