The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Pay[edit]

Jill Pay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Per the reasons that were listed in this PROD tag which was removed without any explanation. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 20:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the profiles in The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph linked from the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment... the article has, of course, changed since I nominated it. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 19:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the sources. Tavix |  Talk  02:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable, as evidence by the fact that she has been noted in the press. Does the nom.'s comment indicate an interest in withdrawal of the nom.? JJL (talk) 02:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.