Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Kessler

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Kessler

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

Everything here is local, and most of it is trivial. The WSJ article does not seem to be available, but even if it is substantial coverage, it alone wouldn't show notability. The "top 50" etc .awards seem to all be top 50 etc. in New Jersey. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 00:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree on the sources' being local and/or trivial (with the possible exception of the WSJ article). She may have done some interesting things, but there aren't any independent reliable sources covering them. Aside from copy editing, cleanup, and tagging, the entire article is the product of two editors: Secretsources, a member of a large sockfarm, and Evergreenprkaren, who, judging by their username, likely has a COI. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the analysis from BlackcurrantTea. Looks like self-promotion IMO, subject does not meet notability guidelines Shritwod (talk) 07:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think she did something great, but not sure about the references, better everyone should look deep into this matter Prof.Marlin (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.