Deletion of Teresa May (actress)

Comment: Something like this does not escape  territory just because the ''same'' coverage context pops back up a second or third or fourth time — no matter how many more times she gets another brief blip of coverage because she happens to have virtually the same name as the Prime Minister, she still does not cross from BLP1E territory into "satisfies a notability criterion" until you can show sources ''besides'' the name-twin blips. If you want to get her over  for "Smack My Bitch Up", or over  for appearing in nudie mags, then you can't do it just by referencing those things to sources which are mentioning those facts by way of ''background'' in coverage that she's getting ''because'' name-twin; you need to show that she got some media coverage ''because'' "Smack My Bitch Up" or ''because'' nudie mags '''at the time those things were happening'''. If there were just three or four sources being shown here which were covering her '''without mentioning the PM at all''', then I'd be happy to vote keep — but as long as the sourcing is dated ''entirely'' to 2016/17, and exists fundamentally ''because'' of the name coincidence rather than because her ''work'' is making her notable at all, then yes, she ''is'' still a BLP1E ''regardless'' of how many times the same 1E keeps bobbing back up above the surface of the "insignificant news of the weird" cycle
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NACTOR||WP:NMODEL)

Comment: Yup, time to go. This is a ridiculously thin 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: content and '''retarget''' title to "event" article (needs to be written).  First, to  – there is no doubt that Teresa May has received '''significant coverage''' in '''reliable sources''' that are '''independent of the subject''', so she is '''presumed''' to be suitable for a stand-alone article – "presumed" means "that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included", which is why deleting her article is being discussed here "in depth".  So we see that this begins to boil down to "what Teresa May is".  As for what she is, she has received no awards neither for acting nor modeling, so as I see it, the subject fails both  and .  Therefore, the only possible notability she has must come from the single "event".  We go on to  – one main focus in this discussion has been the third criterion in that part of this Wikipedia '''policy'''.  After removing other stuff, the sentence becomes, "We should generally avoid having an article on a person ... if the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented."  The event has proven itself in reliable sources to be considered significant enough for us to be having this sometimes heated discussion about it.  As well, the subject's role in the event has been quite "well documented".  So the final argument boils down to whether or not the subject's role in "the event" is to be considered "substantial".  Many say "no", because her only role in the event appears to be that her name, "Teresa May", is just one letter off from the prime minister's name of "Theresa May", and that by itself is not at all significant.  Others here seem to say, "But is that her only role in this?  Or is there more to it?"  If her only role is having a very similar name, then no, her role should not be considered as "substantial".  However, if there is more to her role than just the similar name, then that just might make her role in the event substantial, which would meet the BLP1E criteria and allow an article to exist about Teresa May.  Fortunately, the (in this case) controversial BLP1E '''policy''' is assisted by , our '''notability guideline''', which states, "Editors are advised to be cognizant of issues of |weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary |pseudo-biographies, especially of |living people."  It is with this guideline that the subject's article fails, which means that its content should be deleted.  The guideline also stresses that if the event is significant, as in this case, then an article should be written about the event, and the person's article should be redirected to the event article.  This it would seem is the optimum solution.  Thank you for your indulgence, and I ask your forgiveness for "thinking out loud" and for being unusually verbose.  I actually wrote all this before coming to a final decision. &nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NMODEL||WP:PORNBIO||WP:BLP1E||WP:BIO1E||WP:WEIGHT||WP:PSEUDO||WP:BLP)

Comment: because nobody here seems to have actually _read_ . '''All three criteria''' must be met to justify deleting an article, and criterion #3 is clearly not met ("event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented"). Therefore, this isn't a BLP1E situation
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Nobody is disputing that Teresa without a H is a) a porn star (or "glamour model and actress") and that b) her name is similar to that of Britain's Prime Minister. The problem is that none of this satisfies , and also has problems with  and 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:DUE)