Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen L Daniel


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Karen L Daniel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Questionable notability. Low quality sources of which one is the company website. Written like an ad Cssiitcic (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 16:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 16:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  15:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  15:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - clearly of some significance in her field, but not enough to have accumulated significant coverage in reliable sources. Mattyjohn (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Added several additional sources. She has a profile on Bloomberg and has been written about internationally for her work as CFO of Black & Veatch. She has done projects in Africa as part of the Obama administration. She was also the first black woman to serve as chair of the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce. She has been noted as an influential person in several publications both online and in print. Easily satisfies WP:GNG ("has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). Lonehexagon (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral Most of the coverage is very routine and brief, however there are one or two articles that go into detail. Even if this article is kept, it is going to amount to not much more than a few sentences, as here is not much to say. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment the Bloomberg bio isn't the type of thing I would consider as evidence of notability; it's too much of an unfiltered directory. is somewhat substantial, but not enough to meet GNG on its own.  Everything else seems promotional, or is a trivial mention of her in the context of her current employer. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 23:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Having a profile in Bloomberg's S&P Global directory is not evidence of notability in and of itself — it's the corporate equivalent of "I'm notable because I'm on LinkedIn", which is a total non-starter of a notability argument — and not nearly enough of the other sources here are substantively about her to get her over WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect/delete. Redirect to Black & Veatch as she is mentioned in it. Failing that, delete. I concur with Bearcat--TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2018 (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.