Deletion of Chelsy Davy (2nd nomination)

Comment: Full disclosure: This is actually the very first article I created on Wikipedia way back in 2006, so consider me biased.  As far as documentation for the undeletion, that's still on the article talk page, when I got permission from a sysop who needed to remove some |salt. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChelsy_Davy&diff=62511062&oldid=62300875 I'll go ahead and admit off that bat that it's, quite simply, not a good article.  But it shouldn't be deleted, on the basis of passing the |general notability guidelines with flying colors.  You could make a very good Keep case just off the http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=%22chelsy+davy%22| 2,700 Google News Hits.  But there are also the substantive profiles of her:  like these two in the guardianhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/oct/22/monarchy.features http://observer.guardian.co.uk/7days/story/0,,1769305,00.html.  Nor could she get knocked off on the |one event exception: the guardian's year by year breakdown shows her name appearing in multiple articles in each year since 2004 http://browse.guardian.co.uk/search?search=Chelsy+Davy&sort=date&Ntk=MultiWordSearch&sitesearch-radio=guardian.  There are also articles which concentrate solely on her activities: like this one in the Telegraph regarding her career planshttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mandrake/3742388/Chelsy-Davy-inspired-by-economic-crisis-to-turn-to-corporate-law.html.  The break up doesn't take away from her notablility: |notability is not temporary.  The immense mainstream media coverage of Davy over the past 5 years made her notable, and she didn't lose that in the breakup.  That said: the article definitely does need a clean up
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:1E||WP:NTEMP||WP:salt)