The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Specifically addressing the subject requesting deletion, I don't think the star of a well-known TV show counts as "marginally notable". Hence, while her content concerns should be taken into account, the article should not be deleted as part of them.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is adequate IMHO...Subject requesting deletion might be a concern that I don't have the experience to address Tiderolls 14:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; an awful lot of effort today went into protecting this article against a person who may well turn out to be an impostor of the *notable* subject! Blindly deleting based mostly on the assumption that this user is actually telling the truth (which seems more and more unlikely by the minute) would be a very bad call. SMC (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets the requirements of WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets requirement for WP:BIO. If someone is claiming to be her for article deletion, or even if it is her, it has no bearing on deletion. Angryapathy (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even granting the unconfirmed premise that the editor in question actually is Ms. Gill, she hasn't ever requested deletion of the whole article, only of certain statements within it. And an actor who had a major role in a prominent and popular television series which lasted five years is certainly notable enough for us. Give it a once-over for BLP stuff, but keep. Bearcat (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Clearly not of marginal notability but just notable. Moreover, it isn't at all clear that the individual in question is actually the subject. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reliable sources and several awards well meets GNG. -- Banjeboi 03:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability established. If the person requesting the article be trimmed is indeed THE Ms. Gill, her concerns inre statements in the article will be doubly looked into, as all BLPs must meet the requirements of WP:BLP. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 07:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Per all the above keeps.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked Hipocrite about withdrawing so I can do a WP:Speedy keep. I generally don't believe in snow jobs.... -SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded that I would have no problem with anyone snow closing this as keep or whatever, or NACing it as keep, even if they voted, or whatever, but because I still feel the encyclopedia is better without this article, I can't, in good concience, remove my nomination. Sorry. Hipocrite (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me -- will someone please snow close this then, so that other editors' time is not spent on this as the conclusion is clear? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the reasons above. DreamFocus 16:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.