Deletion of Valerie Gray

Comment: due to sourcing available in Google News and Google Books, i.e. improveable.  No reason to delete the edit history per  as it is not a hoax, libels, etc.  Meets  by being coverable in reliable secondary sources and being an element of a notable franchise.  As nomination supports redirect, this should be an editorial discussion for the talk page as no reason has been presented for deletion.  Pretty much everything is somehow salvageable and the article is in any event consistent with what Wikipedia is.  Sincerely
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE||WP:FICT)

Comment: No secondary sourcing, no independent sourcing, so article is in clear violation of  and , which indicate that ''Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy'' and ''If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it''. Isn't in accordance with . Nothing seems to be available. Current article violates OT#PLOT. Nothing particularly salvageable in the current version, so merge is inappropriate.&mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS||WP:N||WP:NOT)

Comment: per DGG. No policy mentioned at all, except too dubious rules.  is a proposal, which will soon be tagged as failed.  is a contentious policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FICT||WP:PLOT)