Deletion of Nancy Heche

Comment: and propose sanctioning Lionelt.  This is yet another one of Lionelt's obvious hatchet jobs where he uses a non-notable biography as a |coatrack to obscure his usual anti-homosexual POV pushing.  As a heterosexual, I am aghast that he is still allowed to edit here.  If this were about race, politics, or sex, he would have been blocked a long time ago, but because he's bashing gays, it is somehow not a problem.  Enough is enough
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: Anne Heche's mom would not be notable solely because she is in related to the famous actor.  Notability is not inherited.  I don't think anyone is asserting she would qualify under .  However, she is an author, and it seems there are references that deal with her, beyond saying she is the mom of of a famous actor.  That is sufficient to justify having an article about her
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC)

Comment: into a sentence or two in Anne Heche, which already has a section on her family. Non-notable individual who gets discussed a lot in unreliable media that either wants to promote her fringe views or that feeds on celebrity scandal, but not enough real coverage to satisfy . I share Viriditas's suspicion of the purpose behind the article's creation; it's little more than a collection of anti-gay quotes and quotes promoting fringe scientific theories about "curing" gays
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Full-article reviews of her two books, one in the Chicago Sun Times, the other in the Christian Post, evidence notability in my view via , quite a bit of coverage in "Call me Crazy" by her daughter, http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=ADHB&p_theme=adhb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0ED028C1EE94CCF3&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM This Daily Herald piece and the CBN piece give me additional confidence in my judgment.  Notability is not inherited automatically via policy, but sometimes it leads towards notability in the real world, and so may or may not be the case here, through the subject's activism and authorship. Possible POV issues, even egregious ones, Wikipedia:Npov#Achieving_neutrality|should be dealt with via normal editing and/or getting assistance at the POV Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard|noticeboard; concerns about problematic editors should similarly be taken to the Wikipedia:RFC/U|appropriate noticeboard, neither is, per Wikipedia policy, a valid rationale for article deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The subject fails . It hangs on the coattails of a notable daughter to some extent and needs some in-depth source(s
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Per joe decker; BLP requires more wp:rs|sources and may need rewording to satisfy |NPOV
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: I agree with Viriditas and DGG, above. This subject fails  (lacks multiple reliable sources substantially treating her with any depth), as well as . Notability can't be , and doesn't inhere without more extensive coverage. Any information about this subject that might be encyclopedic would have a place in the Anne Heche article, which is why any coverage of this subject would exist at all. Compare Ann Dunham, who has her own significant, in-depth coverage. Here, by contrast, the |handful of unsubstantial coverage beside cites to the subject's memoir are not convincing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ANYBIO||WP:INHERITED||WP:LOTSOFSOURCES)

Comment: We shouldn't impose a higher burden on establishing the notability of individuals who hold views that differ from ours.  So Ms Heche is not a gay-positive individual?  Who says this is a fringe view?  How many of the individuals who vied for the Republican nomination for the US Presidency hold the same or similiar views on homosexuality?  I'll accept it is a minority view, but it is at least an order of magnitude too common to be a frienge view.  We should all aim to be be sufficiently fair that that we can draft a neutrally written article that fairly gives the appropriate amount of coverage to views we disagree with.  As I read this article I didn't see any glaring lapses from .  I remind everyone that, if an article is on a notable topic, then perceived lapses from  are supposed to be addressed through wikitags, discussion on the article's talk page, and attempts to replace wording regarded as biased with more neutral wording.  Our deletion policies are pretty clear -- noone is supposed to argue for the deletion of articles due to a concern over bias
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:NPOV)