Deletion of Stephanie Birkitt

Comment: WP:BLP1E certainly does not say that we should punish someone who is in the news by deleting their article if it has existed for years, and if it had plenty of independent and reliable references with significant coverage to satisfy  before the news item surfaced, as she did. Checking http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Search+Archives&as_epq=Stephanie+Birkitt&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_user_ldate=1996&as_user_hdate=2008&lr=&as_src=&as_price=p0&as_scoring=a Google News archive for 1996 through 2008: There were several items which described her appearances in Q&A columns. There was a  story about her from Entertainment Weekly in 2002: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,238358,00.html. In 2002, she was number 21 on USA Todays http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/popcandy/2002-12-18-candy.htm list "Pop Candy's 100 People of the Year
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: and |trout the nominator for not doing their |homework. If the woman had a page, with notability firmly established, for five years now, then clearly |BLP1E is out the window for an event that's just happened in the last couple of weeks
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Whacking with a wet trout (WP:TROUT||WP:BEFORE||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: IMHO, the question is whether Birkitt gets mentioned only in List of David Letterman sketches (following the example for Meg Parsont, who is only mentioned in Late Night with David Letterman), or warrants her own article, like Rupert Jee.  I think the Birkitt is a weak keep because the Jee article is a weak keep too.  Both Jee and Birkitt used to have http://web.archive.org/web/20070118052141/http://www.cbs.com/latenight/lateshow/show_info/bios/cast15.php cast member bios on the CBS website for ''The Late Show'', and I think that's enough to establish their notability.  Citing the longevity of the article is bogus, since it predates the Wikipedia biography controversy and the Wikipedia Watch controversy that prompted the establishment of what became the  policy.  The real issue with the Birkitt article is not whether it should exist, but what should be said about her role in the definitely notable extortion/business ethics case that Birkitt appears to be an unwilling participant in.  It's easy to find all sorts of third-party references to her role in the case, but tabloid coverage and coverage by organizations like TMZ.com should not be cited, because Birkitt is only known for her role on ''The Late Show''.  It's entirely possible that the details of the extortion case will never become public record, preventing any rumored detail about her role in the case (willing or unwilling) to never really be known.  Birkitt's article and her name in any Letterman articles should be monitored carefully for the policy that "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy."  Special:Contributions/72.244.207.41|72.244.207.41
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: First of all, as per nom  textbook example (yes, I'm implying she failed  before the '''1E''').  Secondly, all third-party sources are from the last 4 days (i.e., since the BLP'''1E''').  While she has had a long-lived article, it didn't establish notability before this event.  She was a page for a few TV shows, then an office worker, then a once-in-a-while on air personality (on one show; she, for the most part, justs '''"'''hands out prizes'''"''').  As I've had this debate on the talk page, I'll preempt this here (these are my previous comments verbatim
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:N)