Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Lambert (writer)
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
— User:Bearcat, 22:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:RS||WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)