Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Reed-Rowe


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   14:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Helen Reed-Rowe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable, even from the United States. she gets hardly any coverage. her post to a tiny nation in terms of world diplomacy. LibStar (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP:ANYBIO # 3 met in addition to WP:GNG per cursory US-based Google search. Article could use improved referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * could you please explain how she satisfies ANYBIO #3. Secondly please show the actual outcome of your google search. LibStar (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:BASIC. Of course diplomats are not inherently notable, but multiple independent sources cover Reed-Rowe in detail.--TM 11:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * which sources are you referring to? LibStar (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Army War College Community Banner, White House Press Releases/Lanham, and state department web page all seem like reliable sources that can be used to write an article that passes V, NPOV, and NOR, as this one currently does. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * the white house and state department are primary sources. LibStar (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * They may be, but I'm unclear what you mean. Do you think their use in this case results in a violation of NOR per WP:PRIMARY? Smmurphy(Talk) 21:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * the sources are her employer so not independent of the subject. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep note added source https://diplopundit.net/2010/05/22/officially-in-helen-reed-rowe-to-koror/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffFive (talk • contribs) 14:41, 26 April 2017 (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.