Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Kim Lee

Distinct lack of notability
Clearly a self-promoting affair, this biographical entry about a young and living person was created by its own subject, Kim Lee. Despite the long list of titles in the Filmography, a closer inspection reveals that most of these roles have been "appearances" as "herself" (meaning, working as model) in awards shows or in very small roles ("waitress", "flight attendant", etc), including non-speaking roles, in very few movies. The generic references to the subject's "career" in singing and modelling do not substantiate any notability in those fields, either. This is typical starlet promotional "CV". Please note that the article has already been deleted in 2011 for lack of notability ("there's no explanation of the subject's significance") but Kim Lee re-created it, under a slightly different title, even though there has been no significant change in her career/notability since that time, except perhaps for playing a "dancer" in Hangover II. The Wikipedia article on that movie does not even list her in the cast.-The Gnome (talk) 11:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Kim Lee (Model/Actress) article deleted in April 2011 just said "Kim Lee (Model/Actress) is ", and nothing else, so that really has no bearing on the current article -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The above, however, even if true, has no bearing on the distinct lack of notability of the current article, as it stands. It details the life of one of the hundreds of thousands of models who scrape for a living working between awards shows, automobile shows, openings, and the like, and appearing in a few movies in walk-on or non-speaking roles. That's the extent of the notability of their careers. Do we want a few hundred thousand more articles like this, in Wikipedia? There's a virtually endless supply! -The Gnome (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, indeed, I'm not defending the article - I'm merely trying to make it clear that it can only be decided on the contents of the current article, not on any that have gone before. I expect I'll vote to delete when I've had the chance to do a bit of investigation -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)