Deletion of Alice Stevenson

Comment: The article's only |reliable source is an unlinked article, which does not establish notability. Inclusion in lists is sufficient
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: 5-sentence article completely about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN. Sources are unreliable GRG (2) and OHB, and one unlinked Guardian article not likely to support most of the WP article.  failure alluded in 2007 at article talk
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: The sources used are from the GRG and Rejuvenation Research, a peer-reviewed journal (reliable source). The GRG itself is also a reliable source on longevity issues since its data is used by Guinness World Records. The article also has a reliable source from The Guardian. Therefore I do not know what you allude to when you say there is "no more than one reliable source". You appear to have set up dozens of AFDs on similar articles and have addressed them with the same statement. The statement that you opened this AFD up with does not match the article that you are nominating for deletion. Please highlight where the  and the  are. As with many other articles, the reasons you give do not stand because they are not relevant to the article. Crusading your way through longevity-related articles is not a way to solve any personal issues that you may or may not have with editors involved in these sorts of articles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYN)