Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandy Haberman

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 speedy keep. Self-withdrawing, as all the promotional puffery has been removed, and the article is notable by consensus below. (non-admin closure) Steve M (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy Haberman[edit]

[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)

Does not appear to be notable. Only links are to the official site and LinkedIn-like profiles, which are not notable enough. Next, a Google search did not give me any good, reliable sources. Meanwhile, the article is very promotional in it's current state and may benefit from WP:TNT regardless if the subject is barely notable. Steve M (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Steve M (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Steve M (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Steve M (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article has been the subject of some promotional editing lately, but the earlier version (as of 20 March 2020) is better, with links to sites verifying her status as a visiting Fellow at Bournemouth University and a recipient of the British Female Inventor and Innovative Network (BFIIN) Female Inventor of the Year 2000. (This is a weak keep, because I'm not aware of the significance of the BFIIN award, or the "visiting Fellow" status. I've reverted to that earlier version of the page (keeping the AFD notice intact, of course.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, multiple WP:RS available in The Telegraph, FT, and The Guardian. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, also plenty of coverage in The Times (viewable in Wikipedia Library/ProQuest) Piecesofuk (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Current sources passes WP:GNG. Cuoxo (talk) 18:44, 4 March 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.