Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Gandy

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 16:16, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Helen Gandy

223 hits on google. [1] Does being the secretary of a former president make one notable enough for inclusion or should this be merged elsewhere? GRider\^talk 19:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I would say, "no" in answer to your question but the story about keeping and destroying the files makes me vote Keep on the article. Johntex 02:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Being the secretary of an important person doesn't necessarily make a person notable, but the episode with the papers merits inclusion. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:28, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to J. Edgar Hoover, which already mentions the destruction of the files in less detail. —Korath (Talk) 06:53, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to J. Edgar Hoover. -- SGBailey 23:09, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
• I didn't know J. Edgar Hoover was ever President. No matter. I'm going to vote keep on this one. She's no Rose Mary Woods, but I think this article is actually longer. A redirect, it seems to me, would violate whatever that principle is that says you shouldn't make a redirect if it will make the person go "huh?" (sorry it's nearly 5 am; I'm not thinking straight). This one would. -R. fiend 09:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 00:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. ComCat 02:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I vote keep, too. I found this via the Hoover page, and it seems like she has her own story going on. Maybe others can flesh it out. (Besides, if it's removed from something as open as Wikipedia, you know it's going to be cited as "proof" of "The Conspiracy" to supress whatever yadda yadda someone feels needs proving! :-) ) Bits are cheap, and the light of Truth can't hurt by shining on little stories, as well as big ones. Time will tell whether they're interesting or boring, but only if we let Time have an honest look. PatrickSalsbury 09:07, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, looks notable enough. JamesBurns 05:50, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.