Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Tripp


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C ) 01:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Linda Tripp

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This may seem weird, but I believe this runs afoul of WP:BLP1E. Tripp played a relatively minor role in the Lewinsky scandal, and that's it. Everything else in the article (which may be overly negative) stems from sources on that scandal. It's time to redirect this to the Leminsky scandal article and move on. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and speedy close, WP:BLP1E is meant for tangential people, basically passers by with little real connection to historical events, so that this nomination is very weird and an absurd proposal for a WP:N person after all these years as, since by now the whole universe knows and it's written in umpteen books and hundreds of thousands of WP:RS that Linda Tripp was a key player who trapped and tricked Monica Lewinsky to spill the beans on her affair with Bill Clinton, who had sworn under oath that he never knew Lewinsky and that led to his impeachment. Ridiculous nomination that looks more like a prank and a violation of WP:DONOTDISRUPT and WP:POINT due to what's now going on at Deletion review/Log/2012 November 21 and Articles for deletion/Natalie Khawam. The nominator must be joking that he wants to squeeze this article into the Lewinsky scandal article, then he may as well just keep going and nominate all the 22 articles in the Category:People of the Lewinsky scandal for deletion as well and just squeeze them all into one super-duper Lewinsky scandal ubber-article, starting a new trend on WP, as if we have now run out room for articles in defiance of WP:NOTPAPER, and as if that is the only topic in that complex set of events and personalities. WP is not here to help historical revisionism and the cutting down of key historical facts and persons involved in those major historical events. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't tell if you are trying to demonize historical revisionism, but it is actually a commonly accepted process in academia; interpreting events in new ways is part of a historian's job. Having said that, it really has no place in this discussion, and you've diluted your argument by including it (though yes, it's a nice one-line zinger).
 * The article, as it stands today, is entirely focused on her role in the Lewinsky scandal. Should she have actually done something notable outside of it, I'd be fully in favor of covering her in a separate article, but her entire article here can be covered at Lewinsky scandal without expansion. It's not like there isn't any room there (28,000 bytes total). Also, I don't know if you haven't noticed, but there are plenty of independently notable people in Category:People of the Lewinsky scandal, and I'm certainly not planning to merge Bill Clinton into the scandal article, so that's a grossly unjustified extension of my argument. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You know Ed, I don't know whether to laugh or to cry the way this crazy application of WP:BLP1E is being bandied about ad absurdum. After all you are a student of history. If one takes the case of Gavrilo Princip all he did was pump a few bullets into Franz Ferdinand and Duchess Sophie, in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914, triggering World War I. That's all. It was just a one time event by a nobody, doing one thing, the Duke's driver happened to take a wrong turn in his fancy jalopy and bang Gavrilo was there in a side road by chance yet. Hundreds of millions of people have fired bullets into other people and they don't get an article, but Gavrilo Princip does. Ever wondered why? Because it has historical significance and is part of a broader story that cannot exclude him or what he did. So now that you are at it, feel free to nominate the Gavrilo Princip article because it violates the new holy gospel WP:BLP1E as a one time event by a nobody who got famous not on his own right but because he happened to fire at some famous folks that just happened to trigger a world war. IZAK (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, are you legitimately attempting to compare the trigger of the First World War (~37 million casualties) to a sex scandal? Your arguments are nonsensical. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * His argument is that notability on a one-event shouldn't be reduced to counting with your index finger, but in general the broader scope of impact of the one-event should be taken in context as part of the notability evaluation process. WWI body count is an extreme example of making the point about "broader scope of impact", and extreme examples are often used to make clear the logic behind one's meaning or point, so it is often useful. That is what IZAK is doing here ... he isn't deciding a morality compare -- sex versus blood -- for Christmas sake. (Ed please tell me you get that. And if you do, I think u should apologize to IZAK for your wreckless misreading his argument, your "your arguments are nonsensical" comment.) Thanks for your consider. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep If the Lewinsky scandal and the larger issue of the impeachment were happening today, I don't think this would have run afoul of BLP1E, although the article would have been typically created WP:TOOSOON. That whole thing was basically four people: Clinton, Lewinsky, Ken Starr and Tripp (well, and a blue dress). She was plastered all over the news for the better part of a year, her background scrutinized, her motivations questioned, etc. No, this would have been a typical breakout article out of the main one, and it wouldn't have been considered BLPE1 when all was said and done. It is also part of the historical record at this point, and I doubt it would be hard to prove that. Finally, with respect to the nominator, perhaps discussing whether or not an article meets a guideline or policy is better done actually discussing it somewhere rather than trying to get it deleted. § FreeRangeFrog 01:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The article meets criteria for WP:1E Notability. Event was indisputably significant and the subject played a key role, viz., collecting evidence and blowing the whistle. Richigi (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - as per the nom - not notable person for a EN Wikipedia biography - I wish people would stop writing articles about such tangently notable living people just because there is some press coverage - You  really  can  04:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How is Linda Tripp "tangential" to the Lewinsky scandal and the subsequent impeachment of Bill Clinton? Please feel free to explain and expand on your assertions. Just saying something like "I wish people would stop writing articles about such tangently notable living people just because there is some press coverage" does not make it valid or logical. May as well throw a coin into a fountain and make a wish and hope an encyclopedia comes out of the fountain. Thanks. Tripp is not notable because of newspapers, she is notable because of her role in the Lewinsky scandal and the near-downfall of a US president that caused a constitutional crisis between all 3 branches of the US government. By the way, do you have something against the freedom of the press that reports on what is happening? Thank you. IZAK (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The biography should be written responsibly and with restraint but deleting the article would hamper the reader's ability to research the incident by way of researching one of its participants. Bus stop (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete There's nothing here which couldn't be adequately covered in the context of the Lewinsky scandal. As such, WP:BLP1E applies. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Prefer integration into Lewinsky scandal. Tony   (talk)  11:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep She played a major role in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. She was very notable during the scandal. It is ridiculous that this is even up for discussion.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The first half of your post is what WP:BLP1E gets at - someone notable for only one event generally shouldn't be the subject of an article as their role in this event can be covered in the other appropriate article(s). Nick-D (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and speedy close. Deletion proposal clearly fails the third prong of the BLP1E test. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and Speedy close per WP:SNOW (or anti-snow?) anyway it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Any WP:Policy and guidelines to support your keep comment Sue? - there are as I see - three delete comments, these rule out your desire to speedy snow close -  You  really  can  21:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep per WP:SK point 1. The nominator is asking for redirection, not deletion. That is an editing action that can be discussed on the article talk page, as it doesn't require any administrator to hit the "delete" button. Bringing this to AfD seems to be more a personal attention-seeking device rather than a considered action designed to improve this encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Why the accusations of bad faith? Ed's a long standing editor in very good standing. Attacking him like this is pretty silly. Nick-D (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's precisely because Ed is a long-standing editor, and admin to boot, that he ought to understand that redirection is something that can be achieved without the drama of an AfD discussion. I can't see any reason to start this discussion other than to say, "Look at me! I'm bold enough to start an AfD about a subject that the whole world knows is notable!" Avoiding personal attacks doesn't mean that we shouldn't point out the blindingly obvious. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that wasn't my intent, and if you knew me, you would know that I'm not the type for attention-seeking. Anyway, there aren't many ways to garner multiple comments on a proposal like this, and AfDs are commonly used for this purpose, SK or not. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I am as big a BLP1E zealot as they come, but Tripp passes the John Hinckley (event is notable, person's involvement in event is critical) Test as far as I'm concerned. Tarc (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, for anyone even marginally aware of the politics of the period, her name is indelibly engraved in their minds. BLP1E does NOT mean that a person famous for one event is not notable. its much more nuanced than that, per Tarc and the Hinckley Test.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "I've heard of them" doesn't mean they pass 1E ... this article, in my view, has run afoul of WP:PSEUDO. I would be looking for specific, notable events outside the Lewinsky scandal. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ed, the point is that there is an artificial memory hole created by younger Wikipedians who aren't familiar with historical events outside their limited frame of reference. The fact that there is almost unanimous agreement to keep this article says more about your age than about Mercurywoodrose's argument.  Tripp's notability isn't in question. I realize that you are still a student, but in the future, it might help if you do WP:BEFORE and try to falsify your hypothesis for deletion first. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ed: The Lewinsky scandal was not a "tiny blip" on modern American history. The build up to it spans many years, if you know the history of the Clintons, with their many scandals, such as the Whitewater scandal, Filegate, Travelgate (not to mention stuff that went on when they were running Arkansas) that the Clintons managed to spin their way and bring under control, which is what they eventually did with Clinton's impeachment that was something Linda Tripp materially contributed to in a big way, (something Richard Nixon couldn't even get away with). There were dozens of players on the road and if you like, you can start cutting them out (it would look like a book with the main chapters chopped out by censors, and note that WP:NOTCENSORED), like Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and many other women like this who in and of themselves are not worth much mention, but precisely because they got caught up in the trail of seductions, cover-ups and denials by Bill and Hillary Clinton, they willy nilly become an indelible and indeed required part of a major event and story because of the details that make up the significant political, social and historical over-all pivcture. It is therefore futile to rub them out just because WP has now come up with a side rule not even meant to wipe out important articles that are part of an even more important story. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. No offense to Ed, but he does appear to be operating with a different view of the sources than most historians.  Tripp attempted to bring down a sitting U.S. president, and that is highly notable, not a "relatively minor role" as Ed claims. Viriditas (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and speedy close. You may as well be trying to use WP:BLP1E to delete John Wilkes Booth. Qworty (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep practically a household name. GabrielF (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Coverage in reliable and verifiable sources establishes notability and this is a cardinal example of what BLP1E does *not* cover. Despite overwhelming consensus here, I still give even odds that a closing admin will disregard overwhelming consensus and decide that BLP1E is a prefect excuse to delete this article. Alansohn (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * NOTIFICATION: WP:VPP has received a notification of the discussions that relate to this page and the policy of WP:BLP1E. See Village pump (policy) . Thank you, IZAK (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - What's next, trying to apply BLP1E for Chris Stevens? Go   Phightins  !  21:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The argument for redirecting on the basis on BLP1E is weaker than in the cases that inspired this AfD. Some of the information in the article is noteworthy but too tangential to Monica Lewinsky scandal to be included there (e.g. Trip's legal tussles) and the length of the article, which is reasonably lean, suggests that it is a legitimate WP:CFORK in any case. Formerip (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - BLP1E does not, by it terms, cause the wiki to avoid an article about a person who is central to an event like the impeachment of the President of the United States. Suggest we not do nominations that "seem weird."  It is weird.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Viriditas. Clearly passes the 3rd test in WP:BLP1E. This reminds me of Articles for deletion/Gavrilo Princip. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Tripp was a central figure in a series of events that came absurdly close to unseating an incumbent President of the United States. With this logic might as well AfD Monica Lewinsky too. Faustus37 (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Faustus37 (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2012 (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.