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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Guthrie[edit]

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

Does not pass notability requirements. Natureium (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply being a staffer at the White House is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts a person from having to clear WP:GNG — which is especially true when the article doesn't even say what her title was. But there's nowhere near enough sourcing here to get her over GNG — there's one obituary in her hometown newspaper, one primary source government report and the publication details of a book she wrote herself. So it might be possible to get her over WP:AUTHOR as a writer of a book, if that were sourced to media coverage about the book rather than metasourcing the book to itself, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be sourced properly. In addition there's a likely conflict of interest here, as the creator's username is "Lawrence S Guthrie". Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Tulsa world gave her a substantial obituary. The Washingtin Post gave more of a blurb. I can't find much else and nothing about the book. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Fails WP:BIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable person, fails basic criterion for inclusion. We cannot build article based on single obituary since Wikipedia is not WP:MEMORIAL –Ammarpad (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The article was almost certainly created by a family member....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet Notability requirements. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article's creator has joined the discussion on the article talk page. They've noted some additional sources with coverage such as New Wave : State Flag in DC a Tad Off Color" (Tulsa Tribune, 11/1/1988, p.1) by th Joan Biscupic, this one and this one. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Tulsa obituary is a major one, and other sources in the article and discussed at Talk page do add up. I think it is useful for Wikipedia to answer the question "who is Helen Guthrie" as her name appears in various places, and she is interesting. Editor User:Bearcat and others are providing education to the article creator, about COI and valid sources, which is fine, at Talk page of the article. The creator has been participating in edit-a-thons. Besides the basic validity of the topic IMHO, it would be disruptive to the development of that editor to entirely delete their contributions and also the educational discussion at the Talk page.

We ought to formalize some policy that is newish-editor-friendly, where they get a pass on an AFD automatically, at least for a one-year period, for a topic that is marginal and not blatantly a copyvio or BLP. The topic could go onto some central list to be revisited in a year.

However in this case I do think the topic is notable without cutting any break that way. --Doncram (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 04:40, 27 March 2018 (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.