Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Birkitt
IMHO, the question is whether Birkitt gets mentioned only in List of David Letterman sketches (following the example for Meg Parsont, who is only mentioned in Late Night with David Letterman), or warrants her own article, like Rupert Jee.  I think the Birkitt is a weak keep because the Jee article is a weak keep too.  Both Jee and Birkitt used to have http://web.archive.org/web/20070118052141/http://www.cbs.com/latenight/lateshow/show_info/bios/cast15.php cast member bios on the CBS website for ''The Late Show'', and I think that's enough to establish their notability.  Citing the longevity of the article is bogus, since it predates the Wikipedia biography controversy and the Wikipedia Watch controversy that prompted the establishment of what became the  policy.  The real issue with the Birkitt article is not whether it should exist, but what should be said about her role in the definitely notable extortion/business ethics case that Birkitt appears to be an unwilling participant in.  It's easy to find all sorts of third-party references to her role in the case, but tabloid coverage and coverage by organizations like TMZ.com should not be cited, because Birkitt is only known for her role on ''The Late Show''.  It's entirely possible that the details of the extortion case will never become public record, preventing any rumored detail about her role in the case (willing or unwilling) to never really be known.  Birkitt's article and her name in any Letterman articles should be monitored carefully for the policy that "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy."  Special:Contributions/72.244.207.41|72.244.207.41
— [[User talk:72.244.207.41|talk]]), 21:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:BLP (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons)