Deletion of Sophie Hunter

Comment: Numerous references, meets the 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The article subject is notable and the article contains no inappropriate content. There haven been multiple accounts editing the article, most likely including socks, as well as several legitimate editors. anning policy "does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand)"; allowing the page to remain, with whatever Cumberbatch-related material the banned editor included now expunged, is the most appropriate solution. Playing whack-a-mole with the banned editor has reached the disruptive level -- for example, yesterday a long-term, productive editor, who happens to live in the same metro area as Fairyspit and apparently has a slight editing overlap with them, was blocked as a sock, with scores of their image uploads deleted and many other edits undone, with the blocking admin for the moment unavailable to address the issue; Lady Lotus has removed content from this article declaring the ''Boston Globe'' an unreliable source; and, not for the first time, LL has mass-nominated for G5 contributions that clearly predate the ban. Sometimes a selective response is better than a flamethrower
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Bots (WP:B)