Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Ross 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   keep. If nothing else, the sources produced indicate subject meets the general notability guideline. Ours is not to reason why... Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  03:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Justin Ross Lee

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards (WP:BIO) and appears to be largely self promotion. The article currently highlights that the subject once flew on a plane with Ashley Olsen, and later Brad Pitt. The notability criteria page specifically states "that person A has a relationship with well-known person B" is not sufficient for the notability threshold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyankee2003 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 12 May 2013‎ (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

This article meets Wikipedia's notability standards. The subject in question is a media personality (me) who has been well documented by sources that Wikipedia users appeal to when establishing this very notability. The New York Times, The NY Observer as well as television networks and magazine tabloids attest to this relevancy sufficiently. With respect to (WP:BIO) "that person A has a relationship with well-known person B" - this example is not an unsubstantiated relationship, yet reporting of the facts of what has previously been published by citable media sources. Self promotion is merely a product of this zeitgeist. I can understand this issue being raised but respectfully ask that it be put to peace. -Justin Ross Lee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinrosslee (talk • contribs) 22:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)




 * Weak Delete - The Joonbug and Social Shark NYC references are blogs, so are not reliable for BLPs. The Hamptons reference is merely a transcript of an interview with the subject talking about himself, thus it's not a reliable third-party source. The Observer reference is just describing the Post articles. Perhaps with better references it might be worth keeping, even if it has started as an apparent promotional autobiography. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  01:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Requests for adminship - I agree with Uncle Milty. The two most valid references were never directly or properly cited. The following are new and more reliable sources to uphold the integrity of the article: -- &#124;  Justin Ross Lee  &#124;  talk  &#124;

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/fashion/justin-ross-lee-party-animal-seeks-fame.html?pagewanted=all 2. http://observer.com/2012/06/meet-the-gatsbabies-preening-prepsters-lure-ladies-lucre-and-limelight-in-merry-manhattan/?show=all — Preceding comment signed as by Justin Ross Lee (talk • contribs) actually added by Justinrosslee (talk • contribs)


 * Weak delete - only marginally notable, and it's not as if Wikipedia will be worser off without this article. --69.84.112.132 (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep (weak) - It seems like it is well sourced and subject is notable. There are much lesser known subjects on Wikipedia. — 76.109.250.168 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:47, May 23, 2013‎ (UTC).
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)




 * Keep - the problem here is that, with all due respect to the subject, he is most notable for being a bit of a dick, and we don't have a specific notability criteria for that (having read the source articles, something tells me he won't be offended, don't worry). There's plenty of coverage in reliable sources so I think he passes WP:GNG without too much trouble. Would strongly suggest, though, that the subject start respecting our conflict of interest guidelines and stop editing his own article. Yeah? Stalwart 111  13:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Regretfully keep – regretfully because the article's self-promotional intent is evident, keep because WP:GNG is clearly satisfied. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.