Deletion of Pamella Bordes

Comment: we've had a few of these recently and the point I have made elsewhere is that the test for  is ''"significant coverage"'' not ''"significant complimentary coverage"''. Selecting which sources we include based on whether or not they are complimentary of the subject is contrary to . Excluding material because |we don't like it is akin to |original research in that we are building an article which is not based on reliable sources. There are always going to be some subjects (including BLPs) which have only uncomplimentary coverage. That is unfortunate but |Wikipedia is not censored. It didn't take much to find more sources, like http://www.deccanherald.com/content/275816/masters-light-shade.html this from the Deccan Herald, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1254490/What-Pamella-Bordes-did-From-society-girl-life-hippy-haven.html this and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255830/The-wages-sin-She-escort-girl-affairs-Establishment-figures-shocked-Britain-Today-Pamella-Bordes-chats-men-internet.html this from the Daily Mail, http://www.theweek.co.uk/people-news/16301/pamella-bordes-discovered-living-goa this from The Week (Indian magazine)|The Week, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100302/jsp/frontpage/story_12165591.jsp this from The Telegraph (Calcutta)|The Telegraph and http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1309&dat=19890402&id=A6JUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=hJADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6882,305507 this from the New Straits Times. None of those are from the News of the World, by the way
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NPOV||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:OR||WP:NOTCENSORED)

Comment: I am very sensitive to BLP issues, and I understand that Ms. Bordes is most probably unacquainted with how WP operates.  In fact, I was one of the first people who was aware of the blatant BLP violations in this article, which is why I immediately made these edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pamella_Bordes&diff=513775027&oldid=507896790.  Even as we must be very sensitive toward BLP concerns, we must also be balanced, and recognize that more than sufficient  exist to establish her notability.  So I say keep the article, be sensitive, don't allow anything into it that smears her reputation.  I think the middle road is the best solution in this situation
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: I agree with both the nominator and Colapeninsula. The vast majority of coverage is |insubstantial. I also think the coverage that's substantially about this subject verges on tabloid and fails ; none is very additive to  or 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything (WP:42||WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:ANYBIO||WP:42)

Comment: This seems a clear case of  in that the only real notability arises from the London years, and can be adequately dealt with under the Andrew Neil article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E)