Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Sparks (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 11:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Karen Sparks
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BIO. Little coverage in reliable sources. Several sources cited don't even mention this person, and of those which do it's by name only, or one sentence. No significant awards or honours. Does not appear to have made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in her field. Also fails WP:NEQUESTRIAN. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC) Magnolia677 (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - the reappearance of this article (see Articles_for_deletion/Karen_Sparks ) appears to be based on Sparks recently receiving a "40 under 40 award" from the Ottawa Business Journal, given to "accomplished business leaders who are under the age of 40" in Ottawa. At least 680 people have received this award over the years, and this year, out of the 160 applicants, one in four received the award. While I applaud Mrs. Sparks for the achievement, I'm afraid the basic requirement of "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" has still not been met. I wasn't able to find a single example via Google, and out of the 22 references in the article, only two were specifically about her. Both were published by Equine Canada; the second of which was announcement of her appointment to their board of directors. My main concern though, is that the article's (re)creator Beaverbrookottawa (contribs) may have an undisclosed conflict of interest with regards to Sparks. This warrants further review of edits to multiple Wikipedia articles about her immediate family and their business interests, which may be primarily promotional in nature. IamNotU (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as not currently convincing for notably better. SwisterTwister   talk  07:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: meets WP:GNG per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. comment added by The.sparrowhawk (talk • contribs) 18:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: The.sparrowhawk and article creator Beaverbrookottawa have been blocked as sockpuppets of Andy.w.sparks. -- IamNotU (talk) 11:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: to be fair, I thought I should point out a reference that was slipped into the article under the wire, before the user was blocked: - an interview published in "Faces Ottawa" a free magazine with a circulation of 100,000 in Ottawa; and another reference to the magazine having named her "Entrepreneur of the Year for 2015":  I don't know about significant, reliable, and independent though, particularly considering the full-page ad from one "Andy Sparks Realty" on page 47 of the same issue, and the back cover ad from her father's Brookstreet Hotel (Wikipedia article created by Andy.w.sparks) on the previous issue, plus Brookstreet being one of the sponsors of the 2016 awards: . Oh, billionaires...  -- IamNotU (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  02:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete:. Fails BIO for lack of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"; there is really only one source given, it isn't known to be reliable, and does not appear independent.  Being the director of a barely notable equestrian park isn't notable by itself anyway.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with all of above arguements for deletion. Not notable. ツStacey (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. None of this constitutes a strongly credible reason why a person would warrant coverage in an encyclopedia — and the referencing is about half primary sources and half media coverage which namechecks her existence but isn't about her, which isn't how you get a person over WP:GNG. It's not impossible for people of purely local notability to get into Wikipedia, but it takes a lot more sourcing and substance than this. Bearcat (talk) 02:52, 11 May 2016 (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.