Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Mei Li Josephine

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Mei Li Josephine

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

Per WP:NPOLITICIAN being elected to office doesn't necessarily mean you deserve a wp page. "Is being appointed" makes me think she has yet to be appointed? Sources provided are not reliable and additional secondary sources could not be found. Comatmebro (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia doesn't even seem to have an article yet about the government office to which she is reportedly going to be appointed as Head of Information and Publication (i.e. not to be the chair of the office, but a lower position than that). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The position in question makes her a bureaucrat, not a legislator, so there's no automatic presumption of notability just because she exists — but the "references" here are both primary sources (her own Facebook and her staff profile on the website of her own past employer), which are not independent of her and thus cannot support notability. No prejudice against recreation in the future if she can be shown as the subject of enough media coverage to clear WP:GNG, but merely existing is not grounds for an improperly sourced article. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Metropolitan90 and User:Bearcat. --Hirsutism (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is a doctoral student. I found nothing to suggest any kind of notability. --Bejnar (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and also because the article has no inline citations which fails the WP:BLP criteria. DrStrauss talk 15:56, 11 July 2017 (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.