Deletion of Samantha Brick

Comment: per . I am opposed to a merge to Daily Mail#Criticism of the Mail's treatment of female employees, and in fact I shall suggest on the talk page of that article removal of the paragraph there, because that is (a) also a  item of no serious or lasting significance, and (b) nothing to do with the Mail's treatment its employees
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: I'm sure Mrs. Brick would say that we're all jealous people because she's so lovely (and she is quite lovely), but the fact remains that there isn't a depth of coverage about her. All of the articles about her have been recent and so far this appears to be a clear cut case of . There's no way of knowing that she won't remain in the public eye, but there's no way of guaranteeing that she ''will''. If someone wants to userfy this in the chance that she will get lasting coverage, then I have no problems with that, but she just doesn't meet notability guidelines at this time. As far as people accessing the page, we don't keep articles because  or just because a person is popular in the here and now. Articles must be properly sourced and meet notability guidelines, which Brick doesn't at this point in time. She's only known for one event and that event in itself doesn't show any lasting notability at this point in time
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:ITSUSEFUL)

Comment: on second thoughts to something like Daily Mail, and still for the same reason, . The event itself is notable enough to be mentioned in the Daily Mail article, particularly as the Mail attracted criticism from a journalist at another newspaper over issues relating to this event. A slimmed down version of the text could be included in that article, and Samantha Brick could safely be redirected there. I've taken a copy of this for now as I might work on it at a point in the future when this article may not be around, and it would be useful to have this material to hand. But really this is something that should have been added to the appropriate article to begin with because this subject is far too trivial for a standalone page
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: It is a clear cut case of .  She was notable before the ''Daily Mail'' article, the article is not notable and the event is not notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: in spite of ther stuff exists for one set of debate arguments, and because of ther stuff exists for another such set.  Both sets will get a fair airing as the discussion proceeds, but suffice it to say that the subject, at age 41, is not a novice at being in the news, both in writing and being written about. Her website, http://www.samanthabrick.com/ details sufficient writing and TV producing credits to make her notable without the burden of this somewhat demeaning and disparaging publicity that diminishes what appears to be a fairly notable career which, by all appearances, seems certainly deserving of a Wikipedia biographical entry on its own merits
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Orphan (WP:O||WP:O)