Deletion of Emily Schooley (3rd nomination)

Comment: mdash; fails . This should really be G4'ed (and someone else might very well come along and do it), but ''I'm'' leaving it given the nominator's concerns so that a solid result can be flushed out. Seems trying to gain notability by gaining an article (and not the other way around). Creating a bunch of socks (and/or getting |friends and colleagues to help in prior AfDs) also isn't helping, nor do interviews/posts on their sites help to establish notability due to failing |reliable sourcing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACTOR||WP:MEAT||WP:RS)

Comment: subject at least meets , if not  which I would argue for as well. Also, I have taken the time to significantly improved sources on the article. Including regional print newspaper sources such as Scarborough Mirror and Kitchener Record, which mention Schooley's contributions as an actor, relevant to the Greater Toronto Area and Golden Triange Areas of Ontario, Canada. Also, if you view the discussion with Winner 42, they mentioned they would NOT have submitted the article for deletion had it not been vandalized. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Winner_42#Emily_Schooley_AFD_request here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:GNG)

Comment: per the spirit if not the letter of G4 (article recreation after a deletion discussion). {{reply|Sadfatandalone}} I did not agree with the previous deletion closure, but for the AfD process to be meaningful we need to respect the community's decision. Has something about the ''subject'' (not ''the article'') changed in the last month that would invalidate the previous discussion? If you simply disagree with the previous closure, the process for review is  REVIEW
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DELETION)