Deletion of Camille Cleverley

Comment: Interesting concept - "famous but not notable".  That's quite a stretch.  Can we AfD Paris Hilton yet then?  (I think not.)  There is no practical limit to the number of topics that Wikipedia can cover.  |Wikipedia is not paper.  As long as the ''guidelines'' for notability are satisfied, why can't most every kid on a milk carton have an article, especially if it was nationwide?  There aren't that many total.  The "milk carton" complaint would only strike me as a problem if people were using Wikipedia to find their lost pets or runaway teens. Having an article is certainly more meaningful than a search result essentially saying ''"Nope, we have no idea who that is, but see the extensive Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camille Cleverley|discussion on why we're keeping our mouth shut"'', or ''"Nope, we don't know who this is, and we don't want you to tell us either (salted
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPAPER)

Comment: Both comments you make are more likely true than not.  To add to it, I suppose many people here recognize that being a blonde white female means the attention she ''gets'' is far more than the attention she ''deserves''.  It's also true that she's getting talked about much less now that she's found.  That's the nature of all news and events.  But that does not make someone not notable.  Plane crashes are no different - their perceived notability is exaggerated simply because planes fly and people fear that - and they disappear just as quickly from the news.  Yet we have extensive articles not just for plane crashes, but for near misses that harmed nobody! (2007_San_Francisco_International_Airport_runway_incursion|example, 2005_Logan_Airport_runway_incursion|example, 1999_T._F._Green_Airport_runway_incursion|example).  I think we should stick with  the criteria in  for judging notability.   says notability means ''the person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject''.  If notability were judged on how notable some feel she ''deserves'' to be, then I'd agree, this article should go (and I'd AfD Paris Hilton in the same swoop
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: per the #Criteria for notability of people|relevant notability guideline: ''The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.'' Certainly this is the case here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: per nom and per #MEMORIAL. Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:N)