Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fanne Foxe


 * 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. Fanne Foxe was clearly a notable individual whose involvment with a scandal brought down a major political figure. While it may have only been a one time event, policy reads, If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources.  This is clearly a significant enough event and her role significant enough that this qualifies. Saying that she wasn't notable would be like saying Jennifer Flowers or Monica Lewinsky failed BLP1E--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Fanne Foxe

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Pretty much the definition of WP:BLP1E, I can't see having the bad luck to pick a drunken congressman as a john makes her notable.  MBisanz  talk 23:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Worth a Redirect to Wilbur_Mills. Although perhaps some coverage of her book ("The Stripper and the Congressman") would make this noteworthy. That probably still falls under WP:BLP1E though. Jujutacular talkcontribs 23:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close Come on, get serious. Time, Google news, Google books. Passes any rational definition of "notable". And no, I'm not going to work on the article or waste time debating here. Dekkappai (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The wording is If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. What other thing is she known for in the sources?  MBisanz  talk 00:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting... and pardon my OTE Matthew, but that argument could just as easily apply to Lee Harvey Oswald, as he is even more likely to have been totally non-notable if not for that day in Dallas... And Oswald by the way gets 975 news hits to her 753. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Wilbur Mills per Jujutacular . Nom is correct in that the subject does not warrant her own article. Location (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep based on recent changes by MichaelQSchmidt. Good work! Location (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. BLP1E argument fails completely. Individual did not remain low-profile, and Google News search shows that the press continued to cover her activities for years afterwards.  Article as it stands doesn't begin to indicate how prominent she was, or how durable her notoriety has been. NYTimes search shows 100 references to her, including several this year, one in a Krugman column. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt that she was a big part of a high profile event, however, I'm not clear on what you mean by stating that the press continued to cover her. I'm wondering if there is something else they reported on because all the GNews references I see refer back to the 1974 affair with Mills. Location (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The subject is so frequently referred to, even up to the present, in media discussion of Washington sex scandals that it would be a bad idea to delete this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Lee Harvey Oswald, you're next! Dekkappai (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Wilbur Mills. WP:BLP1E without enough publicly relevant detail to warrant a separate biography.  Google News search mentioned by Dekkappi is an unintentionally good example: almost all the articles after 1975 only mention her in the context of someone who was once found with a a Congressman, not notable in her own right &mdash; see Google News search with "House", "Chairman", "Congressman", and "Mills" blocked.  Details of this person's life are not notable; she just got caught being a seedy friend of a Congressman, and being a seedy friend of a Congressman is no more notable in and of itself than being a stripper.  She's no Lee Harvey Oswald; she's not even Monica Lewinsky, who got far more extensive coverage than Foxe without even attemtping to be a public show off.  In short, there's nothing useful to be said about Foxe that won't fit easily in one section of a parent article. --Closeapple (talk) 06:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete tough call. that name is permanently burned into my brain, and i wasnt that old at the time. however, if she is only known for this, did not get more than a few interviews, then even her name being occasionally synonymous with this kind of incident is not much to establish notability. merge whatever makes sense into the wilbur mills article. it would be great to put a sourced line on her names use in later years.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Easy Keep The Google news search shows that the story of Foxe and Mills comes up every time there is a sexual scandal that ruins the career of a member of Congress, and it's been going on for 35 years.  In many cases, the obvious question of "whatever happened to..." came up when the story was dredged up yet again.  Coverage long after the fact is the difference between "notable" and "historically notable".  If this were 1974, it would have been speculation at that time as to whether Fanne Foxe would be remembered in the future.  In 2009, it's not a question.  Mandsford (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Easy keep as meeting notability criteria. That the article focuses on one event does not mean that there are no others.  It will benefit from expansion. But only a BLP1E? Nope. Yes, lots of the covergae is about the Mills scandal... but that event is not the only thing covered in sources over the last 35 years. The woman is more than a "one-trick pony" (no pun intended), and has received coverage in multiple reliable sources from 1974 until 2009, and is written of in detail in a great number of boooks . Its a keeper. Tag for expansion and further sourcing and let's  move along. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, seems like a WP:BLP1E to me. Bwrs (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems? Just as with the assasination of Lincoln by an stage actor, sometimes an event can have repercussions that are discussed for years or decades, thus assuring its notability. This event has continued inspection and discussion in media and literature. The BLP1E inclusion pecedents of Monica Lewinsky, Linda Tripp, and even Lee Harvey Oswald show that Wikipedia welcomessuch articles in such circumstances... and this is reputed to be one of the most reported political sex scandals of the 1970s . Further, Foxe is third on Time Magazine's list of Top 10 Mistresses  and the scandal is listed as number 3 in the top 10 U.S sex scandals by Bloomberg in 2009 . When a person continues to echo through history, they become notable. Seems?  No. IS notable? Yes. And oh... the article is being further expanded and sourced since nm own !keep above. Precednet within these pages allows such to exist, though I believe renaming it to Fanne Foxe scandal might be appropriate. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Easy keep Fanne Foxe is third on Time Magazine's list of Top 10 Mistresses, and the scandal is listed as number 3 in the top 10 U.S sex scandals by Bloomberg in 2009. Very well referenced article. Ikip (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keepy-Keep - Meticulously written and cited article on legitimate historical figure. No-brainer keep.  --AStanhope (talk) 03:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:BLP1E. Ironholds (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article specifically passes WP:BLP1E in that "If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources." The event was significant, the individual's role within it was more than substantial, and the coverage for 35 years in RS has been quite persistant. Even before the further expansion and sourcing forced by this AfD, BLP1E had definitely been met. Thanks MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - signficant footnotee (is that a word?) in history, HUGE newsmaker throughout the 1970s, and not just famous for one news cycle. Bearian (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2009 (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.