Deletion of Eunice Sanborn (2nd nomination)

Comment: with List of supercentenarians from the United States. Of course, one way to try and get your way is to just https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eunice_Sanborn&type=revision&diff=691671399&oldid=691647446 remove most content and sources from the article, like EEng did here. Coverage in reliable sources suggests she passed .  is not an argument
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The sources provided by {{user|930310}} and in the article clearly demonstrate that the subject has received sustained significant coverage from 2006–2011. Eunice Sanborn clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources that are Wikipedia:Independent sources|independent of the subject".Regarding the  arguments, I refer to my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Tillman.  says: When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. I believe that in the case of Eunice Sanborn "understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page". There is extensive information about Eunice Sanborn in the sources provided. The article can be further expanded based on the sources linked above, and it would be  weight to merge her article to a page like List of supercentenarians from the United States. further states: Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable "Delete" proponents have failed to explain how the topic would become more "understandable" if Eunice Sanborn's article is merged to the supercentarian list.From http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/At-111-Jacksonville-woman-is-now-the-oldest-Texan-1547206.php: Census records show that Sanborn was born July 20, 1896, in Lake Charles, La., though she claims she was born a year earlier, French said.She married her first of three husbands when she about 18 years old. The couple soon moved to north-central Texas, but the man died in a traffic accident in about 1927. She remarried in the early 1930s and in 1937 she and her second husband built and operated Love's Lookout, a recreational facility just north of Jacksonville.The facility included an Olympic-sized, lighted swimming pool, miniature golf course, dance hall and archery range. The family closed it in the late 1970s.She was left a widow again in the early 1940s. She married a third time, but her husband died in 1979. She also outlived her only child, a daughter, French said. This biographical information is encyclopedic and can be used to further expand the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOPAGE||WP:NOPAGE||WP:UNDUE||WP:NOPAGE)

Comment: under |notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: it's nice that she lived an apparently fulfilling life and that she staved off the inevitable for an unusually long time, and oddly enough none of the preceding seems to show up as criteria for |notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)