Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Hanton

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. Bucketsofg 02:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karen Hanton

Karen Hanton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Prodded article, but I'd like some comments as to whether this page should stay. Axiomm 22:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I was performing the cleanup while you AfD'd the article. I think the person is notable (see "External links") and deserves an article. I have deleted almost all of the content as "advertising" or unsourced. I think what little is left (I will add a little more) qualifies as a stub that can be expanded later. -- Black Falcon 22:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cbrown1023 talk 02:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• 'Delete' probably non-notable, but certainly with no independent 3rd party sources: e-consultancy is from a list of speakers, company information is her company; external links: her company, the same list of speakers, an interview in "Visit Britain" a government-produced tourist guide, an interview with startups.co, a commercial site with no editorial independence. If the awards are real, there should be at least trade-journal sources.DGG 04:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The sources necessary were quickly forthcoming, and they are clearly sufficient. I think it is still not very great notability, but it does meet the requirements.DGG 05:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, article reads like advertisement/resume. Smee 10:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
• Keep as additional sources have been added. --Dhartung | Talk 10:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets WP:BIO with reliable secondary sources. --Charlene 12:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, in the hope that a general clean-up follows as promptly as the sources Alf^Photoman 15:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Some info from her company's website, but most from independent sources. JamesMLane t c 05:48, 2 March 2007 (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.