Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Hall Stewart

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. Mz7 (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Karen Hall Stewart

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Karen Hall Stewart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Previously deleted bio of non notable businesswoman, resume-like and lacking sufficient reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Weak Keep seems notable between the 2018 Globe reference already in the article and a 2012 Toronto Sun reference that's still online. I don't see any indication that their middle name is Hall though (it surely is, but WP:COMMONNAME). Article should be renamed "Karen Stewart (entrepreneur)" or something. The content of the article itself is dreadful - needs a complete rewrite, so it doesn't sound like a paid advertisement. Nfitz (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Consensus is clear - and a weak keep shouldn't slow it. Nfitz (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Delete this is a spammy PR puff piece and the subject lacks notability based on the utter lack of in depth coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Delete No real coverage outwith the above puff articles. Couldn't find a single notable ref. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 20:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Delete — Per rationale provided by scope_creep. Celestina007 (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BIO and WP:N. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Delete, no real coverage, does not pass notability. Alex-h (talk) 09:35, 20 June 2020 (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.