Deletion of Allen B. Reed

Comment: not notable for stand alone article and believe emorial applies
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Mediation (WP:M)

Comment: Most (all?) of the citations are |routine announcements of station, some from |primary sources, and don't necessarily meet the requirement that an subject of the article be given Wikipedia:INDEPTH|in depth coverage by secondary or tertiary sources to meet the |notability guidelines. I could be convinced otherwise, but scanning the citations, I just don't see it here. Am I missing something
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE||WP:PRIMARY||WP:GNG)

Comment: does not seem to pass the threshold of notability and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:MEMORIAL)

Comment: Delete''': large amounts of the article remain unreferenced, which makes it difficult to accurately determine if the coverage is significant. In its current form, I'm not sure that the level of coverage actually does meet , but if the remainder of the article could be referenced to reliable sources, I believe it would be a keeper. (I have marked where I feel refs are needed in the article). It is important to note that WP:SOLDIER does not state that any topic is automatically notable, but rather provides advice about what is likely to be notable, so it shouldn't be quoted as the be all and end all. Regards
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)