Deletion of List of supercentenarians who died in 2012

Comment: Several policies apply. 1. "'''Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization'''s, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the '''intersection''' of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon." Fails criterion. 2. This article is a replica of the ONE notable source, and probably is a . That site states, "These tables are Copyright ©  2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 by GRG Interactive." Seems kind of compelling. 3. / apply
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyright violations (WP:COPYVIO||WP:NOTMIRROR||WP:WEBHOST)

Comment: A defined list on a notable topic with clear inclusion criteria, which is part of a bigger series. Also compare with List of veterans of World War I who died in 2008, for example, which is another similar |stand alone list
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:SAL)

Comment: There's no evidence that people who survive 110 years are inherently notable. They're often (but not consistently) subject to a brief burst of fame on their death, but this falls under . If these subjects were inherently notable, this list would be a reasonable way to organize the articles, but they're not, so this list ''and most of the linked biographies'' should be deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: This appears as  to me - most, of course, do receive obituaries of some type, but this lies far outside of the idea of counting how many died within a particular cycle of 365 days, interest in which I do not see in multiple, reliable third-party sources. Supercentenarians who are notable for their coverage will appear in the respective "Deaths in...." article, the rest who did not meet the criteria for some other list fall under 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Listcruft (WP:LISTCRUFT||WP:NOTMEMORIAL)

Comment: With reference to the nomination, I don't agree with the argument of uniqueness: all year-based lists of people should be based on the most year for which they were most notable; in most cases that would be the year of birth or the year of an achievement; but in the case of supercentenarians, it is the year of death which is most notable because it is their age at the time of death which is notable, and therefore the death date is the most sensible basis for categorisation – that this happens to be unique to supercentenarians is not a just cause to delete the articles. With regard to the validity of the topic and , I make the following observation – not all supercentenarians have their own biographical pages, but there are many who do and for whom their supercentenarianism is their only point of notability; therefore I must conclude that supercentenarianism is sufficient basis to meet , and that this is a valid basis for a stand-alone list. The referencing isn't great, but that can be improved
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:LISTPEOPLE||WP:N)

Comment: I think this comes down to a question about whether supercentenarians are notable. If they are, by sheer dint of longevity, then a list of them is appropriate, and listing them by year of death seems logical. I think longevity is a case of , and that longevity does not confer notability, but I know others disagree
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)