Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzen Johnson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 05:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suzen Johnson

There can never be a perfect article about Suzen Johnson. The only reason she is listed is because she's slept with Frank Gifford and as a consequence appeard on the front of Playboy. The relevant information, of which there is little, is mainly there at Frank Gifford. Delete. The Land 09:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 09:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. She became famous for the affair, but it was a more notable affair, than just Frank Gifford's role in it. It involved issues of how far a tabloid could go for a story; she filed a notable lawsuit. She also did get the cover of Playboy; that's been the high point of many a model's career. She also had a back-story about a fitness club scam (journalist's words, not mine). I expanded the relevant information at Suzen Johnson. AnonEMouse 13:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. She's not notable for the best of reasons, but she's notable nonetheless, if for nothing else than the large amount of media coverage associated with her. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom, not enough reliable sources exist to create an encyclopedia article.--Sean Black (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - this version of the article has a fair number of reliable sources. An admin reverted my changes, saying they read like "an indictment", and asking me to "go easier on Mrs. Johnson". I'm negotiating with him now to see what kind of compromise we can reach, which should be soon; until then, please don't assume there are as few sources available as in the current article version, rather look at the version I linked to just here. AnonEMouse 23:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Those are mostly tabloids, and half of the article isn't confirmed by those sources.--Sean Black (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Please look at it again, folks. I expanded, while "being nicer to Mrs. Johnson" (mainly being briefer on the unfavorable parts) and it didn't get reverted again, so it looks like most of this is going to stay. Lots of references. AnonEMouse 17:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Being on the cover of Playboy makes her sufficiently notable. The rest is extra. --Rob 23:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I have to say I disagree. Yes, a list of playboy covers is encyclopedic. An article on every playboy cover model isn't when they will mainly be populated with their current area of residence, their dog's name, and their profession. Suzen Johnson might be notable but I don't think that can e the reason for it. The Land 07:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - While it doesn't look like we're going to have any great consensus for delete, I want to note that most of the items included in the article are very non-noteworthy (and tabloidy). I think this article needs to be trimmed down to its bare bones, and left there. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 17:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Seems notable enough to me, and well enough sourced. Keep ++Lar: t/c 04:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Won't be notable in another year. Heck, who's even going to remember Frank Gifford? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. (note comment above) If the individual made national news, and I've heard of them before Wikipedia, it passes my own criteria for notability. Bastique 12:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep People will remember Frank Gifford because of his football days and, for what it's worth, his ties to Kathy Lee. The article is well referenced and while she may be thought of as a footnote by some, many people will remember the affair. There are also those who dislike Kathy Lee with great vehemence and would like to know what they can about the woman who had an affair with her hubby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dismas (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. Verifiable, interesting, relevant to important matters... --maru (talk) contribs 21:15, 14 May 2006 (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.