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. The sources cited by Phil Bridger do appear to demonstrate notability.--Kubigula (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Levete[edit]

Amanda Levete (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Apparent vanity page, person does not conform to any of the guidelines for notability either as creative professional or as academic. Sources are not reliable or independent. Gorgonzola (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Gorgonzola (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As it stands, it should be deleted. WP is not a Curriculum Vitae repository. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails notability for inclusion Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Why not spend a few seconds looking for sources before screaming "vanity"? Google News gives us 178 sources [1] including The Daily Telegraph regarding her as a "leading figure from across the arts" [2], The Independent on Sunday publishing an article about her saying that she has produced "some of the most technically and visually challenging architecture of recent years" [3] and the International Herald Tribune making her the main focus of an article about architects who design furniture, saying that she is "one of Britain's most accomplished architects" [4]. Google Books gets 270 hits [5] such as these [6] [7] [8] and many others. It only takes minimal effort to find out that the subject is a top-notch super-notable architect and designer. If you want references in the article then please feel free to add them now that I have done the work to find them for you. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as Phil has demonstrated, reliable sources exist. -- Whpq (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2008 (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.