Deletion of Alice Stevenson (2nd nomination)

Comment: If one follows our policy, this is an easy call. There is nothing in this article that cannot be covered in a list, per .  It's simply not biographical to detail a bunch of facts about other people and where they stood in relation to the article's subject in some mythical competition to live long. Announcing that a person who lives an extraordinarily long time is, by virtue of that fact alone, notable does not comport with our policies on |notability. Perhaps, under our everyday understanding of the word "notable", some longevity enthusiasts might consider this person notable. But that's not how "notable" is defined on Wikipedia. It's not about whether a person is "worthy" of an article here, or whether they "deserve" one. It's about whether there is '''|significant''' coverage in multiple, independent |reliable sources.  This article has references to a few reliable sources, but there's nothing significant here. It's like Gertrude Stein's observation about the Oakland, California of her time. Once you get there, there's no "there" there.It is not disruptive to try to improve our encyclopedia by pruning back a  that has, for far too long, proliferated articles and lists that defy our policies. As tired as the longevity hobbyists are of AfD's based on policy, please trust that the wikipedians working on correcting these out-of-policy accretions are equally tired of being accused of disrupting our joint endeavor
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOPAGE||WP:N||WP:SIGCOV||WP:RS||WP:WALLEDGARDEN)