Deletion of Denyse Tontz (3rd nomination)

Comment: A hastily unwarranted nomination by an editor who has an unfortunate habit of preemptively clubbing baby seals with speedy deletion and AfD and other aggressive deletionism rather than contribute in expanding articles--as in this case within two hours after the article was created while the creator was still working to improve it. As an inclusionist, I'd let the creator continue improving the article (as he or she was doing and has been doing) for a short time before making an executioner's judgment on merits--although ''prima facie'', 4 film roles passes the  notability test.  IMHO, this was definitely not worthy of wasting anyone's time with  AfD, and I'd advise the nominating editor to realize it's in poor form to |tear down a house while it's being built or to |not give a new article a chance to grow. Sometimes it's best to let contributors contribute and see where it goes instead of being so deadset on imposing a draconian presence of the rule of law that strangles contributions and frustrates the contributors. Wikipedia doesn't need any more Woes of the Pharisees|woeful Pharisees driving away contributors
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ENT||WP:DEMOLISH||WP:CHANCE)