Deletion of Luo Meizhen

Comment: Notability isn't based on our subjective opinions on what is notable, but on guidelines. From that perspective, there's arguably concerns with  (is there any enduring notability here? I don't see it), but overall this individual does not seem to meet the general guidelines of . Specifically, I do not see any evidence of non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent third-party sources. She seems to being having a brief burst of attention now that she has died, and she had one or two articles on each of her birthdays from the "125th" on. None of the coverage is particularly impressive to me and, of the four sources on the page, the first one doesn't qualify as a |reliable source and the last two are just copies of her obituary. Most of the articles are "she's old", "she died", "here are some statistics about related topics", nothing that qualifies for the level of coverage that is expected on the subject. And that's what the key issue for me is: how much of an encyclopedic value will the sources allow us to say ''on the subject''? Not much, from what I have seen. To me, this means she lacks the sustained coverage that would distinguish her from thousands of other individuals claiming (falsely or otherwise) to be very old. Redirect to longevity claims is probably fine, but probably also pointless
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER||WP:N||WP:RS)