Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzen Johnson (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 no consensus. Any editorial actions such as merging remain entirely appropriate. Stifle (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suzen Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Survived AFD back in 2006 as policy back then was a joke. Obvious violation of WP:BLP1E Delete Secret ^account 00:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notability is not temporary. She parlayed the affair into several years of publicity, and the debates over the tabloids' tactics and the accompanying litigation were probably more significant than the underlying scandale. GBooks search even turns up coverage in legal reference books. Creating an "event" article would be worse in BLP terms; do we really want Media coverage of Frank Gifford's affair with Suzen Johnson? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article could be improved but the subject is notable for various aspects of her career including as a cover model for Playboy, as a partner in the gym business, for the affair and tabloid contract etc. Not sure what the BLP issue is supposed to be? We aren't supposed to report on the story she sold? On her posing on the cover of Playboy? Not the most famous, significant or important person in the world, but covered substantially in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• merge to Frank Gifford The only content that isn't about the affair is a bit of WP:OR about a website that apparently nobody cared about— otherwise, it would have been sourced better. Mangoe (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This woman is completely un-important and just because she was on the cover of Playboy once out of the hundreds does not have grounds for notability. I agree with the original poster in that the article is in violation on WP:BLP1E in that she is only known for one event that is not significant and also violates it because she stayed low after the entire scandal. I also believe that it is in violation of WP:NPF. Newsjunky12 (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although I suggested merger I would not be adverse to a deletion outcome. Mangoe (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; this might be worth a statement in the Gifford article, if that. Every source discusses her only in context of the affair -> WP:BLP1E. — Coren ^(talk) 22:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I honestly think that we can make this article better by adding more content. I think just because the Giffords are famous there is more to find about this person that has not been included in the present article. Leoesb1032 (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - IDONTLIKEIT, but this one meets GNG. It's pop-culture fluff, but that's what WP delivers... Carrite (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge selectively to Frank Gifford#Affair; not independently notable. Most of the article is about the unmasking of the affair, which is relevant to Gifford and can go in his article. Claims about her subsequent fame are poorly referenced (e.g. info about her website is only referenced to the website, which hardly shows it was significant) and she seems to have faded from public consciousness after a couple of years (aside from the occasional mentions in articles on Frank Gifford, which do nothing to establish her independent notability). There's a few mentions online in non-WP:RS websites that chronicle everyone who ever appeared in Playboy, but aside from that, I'm not seeing evidence that her fame goes beyond a single event. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Frank_Gifford#Affair per User:Coren. When every article on the topic has to remind you that she's the woman who had an affair with Frank Gifford, you're dealing with a clearcut case of WP:BLP1E. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Frank_Gifford#Affair, it doesn't need to have its own article.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Frank_Gifford#Affair. This is mostly a case of WP:BLP1E, even if the 1E did generate quite a bit of controversy and meta-commentary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is the kind of thing WP:BLP1E was designed for. Absent the affair and the media hype, this person was just a flight attendant. Tarc (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2014 (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.