Deletion of Amanda Blain

Comment: due to lack of |significant coverage of this person in independent, reliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: due to lack of |significant coverage of this person as a real person (the sort of coverage that includes genuine biographical details) in |independent, reliable sources. The writer of the article is new to Wikipedia, and is earnest and enthusiastic, and I hate to hurt her feelings. But this is an actual encyclopedia and we carry articles about truly notable people, as Wikipedia defines |"notability" quite clearly. Notability does not come from a single passing mention in the New York Times, or from blog posts, or from fleeting popularity on social networks
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:RS||WP:NOTABILITY)

Comment: Lack of evidence of persistent notability based on substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Sources are heavily dependent on subject's own press releases and lack independence. No evidence that the subject has garnered any lasting notability. Heavily promotional in tone, reads like an advertisment, and full of puffery. Rewriting won't solve anything. Nothing in the article is of encyclopedic value. Arguement for keep boils down to , none of which does much to establish notability, even if taken together. There's a good reason why this article was rejected at AFC
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:LOTSOFSOURCES)