Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judith Exner

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Judith Exner}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Judith_Exner Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Judith Exner}})

Her so-called claim to notability was allegedly being the “mistress” of Kennedy. This is no Monica Lewinsky situation. Nothing eventful or notable happened here. Does the article not say this alleged affair is based on her own account? Trillfendi (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Keep I don't see a rationale for deletion. Wikipedia notability doesn't care if the affair was made up or not. In addition to the Washington Monthly source, [https://archive.vanityfair.com/article/1990/4/the-last-act-of-judith-exner this Vanity Fair] piece is clearly substantial coverage of her. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

::The reason to delete is lack of independent notability. Your idea of notability is only contigent upon two other people she may have had sex with. And now a story about her son finding her in 1990, is a claim of notability? Trillfendi (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Her "claim to notability" is WP:BASIC: "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." HouseOfChange (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. She had a by-lined obituary in the New York Times. The nominator failed to present a policy-based deletion rationale. It doesn't matter why she's famous, only that she is famous. pburka (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

::One of those policies being WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTINHERITED? Trillfendi (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. Massive level of roughly contemporaneous coverage. No way the nom did anything resembling an adequate WP:BEFORE search. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

:::Nothing in the so-called Before showed anything resembling an act of notability. It all came down to the idea that she may have had sex with a gangster and a president who ended up being shot in the face a few years later. Trillfendi (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• KeepI agree with the above editors, given her place in history, the RS, and the fact there was a TV movies made about her life, she is clearly of note. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:SNOW. True or false, she's gotten significant coverage over the years. Bearian (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. The nominator seems to have misunderstood our notability guidelines. WP:GNG and WP:BASIC don't require anything like an "act of notability." Instead, we require evidence that independent, reliable sources have taken notice of the subject. Obviously they have. pburka (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

::You say that, then half of the other articles for deletion discussions show otherwise.... Just being reported on is not what makes notability (at all). But hey, disagreement is what makes Wikipedia what it is. Trillfendi (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.