Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Johnstone

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. Daniel (talk) 10:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Johnstone

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Amanda Johnstone is not notable. Also almost the entire article was created by Amanda Johnstone herself, and thus is heavily bias and made to her to look good. JJK2000 (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per sufficient independent media coverage: TIME, CEO, IrishNews, France24 etc. pp. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per available resources subject satisfies WP:GNG. Timberlack (talk) 07:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockstrike. Blablubbs|talk 20:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as the nom pointed out, this article was a complete mess, full of promotional language and sections supported by nothing other than personal and promotional websites. I have tried to remove some but it probably still needs a fair bit of work. However, I take note of WP:NOTCLEANUP. There is clearly significant coverage by independent sources to meet WP:BIO as CommanderWaterford points out. Deus et lex (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its good that the article is being fixed but it is still not notable. JJK2000 (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - struck through as nominator can't add an additional !vote. Deus et lex (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: .... Big concern nominator has invalidly !voted in this and there are likely significant other issues in the nomination as well.Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2021 (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.