Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Lambert (writer)

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. Courcelles (talk) 03:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Lambert (writer)[edit]

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

Popose delete and salt of related titles. Article is a recreation of Andrea Lambert (previously deleted per AfD and G5). The sources are allmost all links to writing by Lambert herself. The article is probably a recreation of Andrea Lambert. See the page logs for that page here Not sure why Qolpeder has access to content created by blocked sockpuppet Evlekis, but the article may qualify for deletion under speedy criterion G5: Creations by banned or blocked users. There is also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Lambert That AfD is so old however, that G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion does not apply. Given the creation history and the sockpuppetry I'm bringing the article to AfD for discussion. Vexations (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To be fair, I'll note that as an administrator I'm able to view deleted pages, so I can confirm that this version is not a verbatim copy of the previously deleted version — it still isn't really doing a better job of properly demonstrating or sourcing her notability than the previous version did, but neither the body nor the sourcing are a straightforward copy of the prior version. But this is a virtually perfect example of what Wikipedia:Citation overkill refers to as a "notability bomb": editors trying so hard to make a person appear more notable than she really is that they'll throw every conceivable reference they can get their hands on into the mix to get the number of footnotes into the 40s or 50s, but the sources are complete garbage if anybody actually analyzes them. This is not referenced to reliable source coverage about her, but to primary sources, pieces of her own writing, event calendars, and sources which tangentially verify the existence of a literary anthology without even mentioning Lambert's existence at all in conjunction with it. This is not how you reference a writer as notable enough for a Wikipedia article. As noted in Citation Overkill, "an article with just four or five really good sources is considered better referenced than an article that cites 20 or 30 weak ones." Bearcat (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to have articles on everyone, only notable people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Szzuk (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2018 (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.