Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberta Lee

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roberta Lee

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Lacking reliable sources to establish notability of an individual. Most references are to blogs, often Lee's own blogs. One nytimes story mentioned but it doesn't even appear to mention Lee. tedder (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is composed entirely of content sourced to unreliable sources—social networking pages, blogs, subject's website, and wn.com. This Google News search yields only passing mentions of Lee. As such, the article fails WP:BIO. Goodvac (talk) 07:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've been tagging the article with primary-sources-needed but there appear to be none, and the WP:SPAs that started the article keep taking down the tags without doing anything. The article is also an autobiography and I wouldn't be surprised if all the SPAs are one person. It is spam. -IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independent and reliable sources with significant coverage of the individual., so fails WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She may be popular, but the article fails WP:AUTHOR/WP:ARTIST, and there's nothing notable about being an early adopter of the Internet for promotion, especially if there are no independent, reliable, third-party sources to back up the fact that she is noted for this. I had hopes for the NYT article but she is not mentioned there, nor is "new normal". Valfontis (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of sources is a big problem. The amount of socking taking place on the talk page is another. MarnetteD | Talk 20:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think it's socking, I think there's a bit of meatpuppetry and fans of Mz. Lee coming out of the woodwork. tedder (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that I should have included the word "meat" over "sock" in my comment cause that is what it looks like. Thanks for pointing that out Tedder :-) MarnetteD | Talk 02:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From a general notability standpoint, I don't think there are enough outside sources to consider the subject notable. With a rewrite, I think it may pass the test, but not in its current form. Udeezy (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant independent third-party coverage establishing notability. ArcAngel (talk) ) 04:55, 1 March 2011 (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.