Deletion of Shannon Purser

Comment: A role in a notable TV show doesn't make the |personality notable. Let her act in some more ventures and then we can possibly talk about a separate article. Yes, she is a subject of online virality, but what is that based on: ''the TV show''. Hence, delete. Best
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NRV)

Comment: Per what Meters said. Fails ,  and ACTOR
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:N||WP:NACTOR)

Comment: RubenSuben, I did point to the exact guidelines I was referencing.  and the more general case of personal notability, . As I expleained, in my opinion she does not meet the requirements of notability for entertainers, and she does not meet the more general requirements of notability. Since I don't see her as being notable now, I quoted  as an indication that she may become notable in the future if her career continues
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACTOR||WP:BASIC||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: Actually there is indeed a notability guideline that relates to actors' screen time, and with  only 3 episodes of one show she definitely does not qualify under item 1 of . She does not meet item 3 either ("unique, prolific or innovative contributions"). I don't see sufficient evidence to suggest she meets item 2 either ("large fan base or a significant 'cult' following"). This doesn't disqualify her from being notable. but it does mean she has to meet  and I'm not seeing it. Most of the coverage of her seems to be of the "Here's this great new character, and by the way, let's mention the actor who plays the part." If this show was cancelled tomorrow and the actress never had another role would she be notable? I don't think so. 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACTOR||WP:BASIC||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: The guidelines do not require one to meet all three items of the  section of , or even any of them if  and  is met. Since  is considered additional criteria, should  be in doubt.  Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included as stated by 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ENT||WP:NACTOR||WP:GNG||WP:BASIC||WP:ENT||WP:GNG||WP:BASIC)

Comment: I wouldn't have created an article on an actor with a single credit, but there's certainly coverage.  I'm not too sure that a burst of recent coverage would disqualify someone from an article, as |notability isn't temporary.  She may pass  criterion #2, which requires a cult following.  For example, http://www.vulture.com/2016/07/shannon-purser-barb-stranger-things.html from Vulture.com describes her character's viral popularity, though it seems to stop short of saying Parser herself has a cult following.  http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/q-and-a/a47179/stranger-things-shannon-purser-interview-barb/ This article from ''Esquire (magazine)|Esquire'' explicitly calls Purser a "cult icon".  Perhaps because she's only had this one role, it's tough to separate the coverage of the character from the actress.  So, I can see an argument that the character is the more notable of the two.  If we made a new article on the character, Parser's article could conceivably redirect there until it's easier to establish notability for the actor beyond the role.  I'd be curious to hear what others have to say
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP||WP:NACTOR)

Comment: Internet fame is still fame; shortlived fame is still fame. This actor is the subject of numerous articles in the media,so I ludge her notability to be greater than mere "viral fame" would create, satisfying . And if, a year from now, this proves to be mistaken, we can delete it then.j&middot
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)