Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Alcantara

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Alcantara[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

dubious notability, the websites in the references doesn't say the things stated in the article Melaen (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Support the OP argument that the references don't say anything that is stated in the BLP. While the first reference says "Amanda" it seems to be about someone entirely different. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all references fail verification; the last shows this person exists and has a blog. Even if this person is notable, the present article supplies literally nothing to have a good article based from - David Gerard (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete the only working reference link is to her own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article in its original state was a nonstarter, but it seems like there are enough WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. For example, this profile in Latina magazine. I rewrote the article with other new sourcing as well. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unconvinced - Safehaven86's new version is vastly better, but there's nothing that seems to pass WP:GNG. Are there any other criteria she might pass? - David Gerard (talk) 07:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to see whether better sources can save this JohnCD (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: - WP:GNG met. Thanks for your work @Safehaven86:. Hmlarson (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep - good work, all - David Gerard (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2016 (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.