Deletion of Alice Stevenson (2nd nomination)

Comment: or '''Redirect'''. . While there are a good number of sources, this article tells us nothing (literally) that isn't already present in the table linked in the opening
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOPAGE)

Comment: When looking for |significant coverage of ''her'', there isn't much. As cited, citations 2-7 aren't for her for her but for her in terms of her ranking. There's two GRG citations, one to the Rejuvenation Research, and one to a demographic study, all of which are going to be just listings of her which seems to be what those five sources are for and not much more. From there, there's the Reading Eagle bit which is a trivial mention about her not taking medicine (which seems to be the implication of the Guardian piece although it's for the ''next'' oldest Briton). The Pittsburgh Press is another single-column blurb with little details, as is the Windsor Star (mostly about the number of claims rather than her) and the Leader-Post (that she turned 112). A sprinkle of random mentions across a number of pages isn't sufficient for an article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: as per above  is not a valid argument. But mostly because being the oldest briton is within WP:GNG
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST)