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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Purely on notability grounds - amateur Peter Rehse (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NMMA because she has no top tier fights and WP:GNG because she lacks significant coverage. Jakejr (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No top-tier fights, poor sourcing. Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Luchuslu (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Clearly fails both WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. I do believe that Peter is wrong when he says she's an amateur, but he's right about his main point--she's not notable. Papaursa (talk) 04:49, 18 August 2013 (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.