Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dolly Kyle Browning

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 delete — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 13:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dolly Kyle Browning

A WP:COATRACK of an article which violates WP:BLP1E. Lacks refs showing substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources. Fails WP:BIO Edison (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with conditions she seems to be very notable over her relationship with Bill Clinton as a google search shows, but the article lacks good sources to show notability, if they cannot be found Delete. Atyndall93 | talk 03:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Basketball 110^{Go Mavs!}/_{Review me!} 04:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Terrible article, but sources are easily found, such as TIME and the NYT. This was, at the time, considered worthy of wall-to-wall coverage, and we only had about two cable news channels then. --Dhartung | Talk 06:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 16:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable minor figure in endless list of alleged Clinton paramours. Unlike Juanita Broaddrick and Elizabeth Gracen, she is non-notable except for one alleged incident (the affair is a single incident, despite her claim of a long-term relationship), and therefore falls under BLP1E. Possible redirect to Bill Clinton#Sexual misconduct allegations, but article should be nuked. Horologium (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between a potential witness against someone in a court case and an actual one. Since she wasn't called as a witness, she can't "use" Clinton v. Jones as a basis for notoriety. Since she didn't testify, all that can be said objectively about her is that he alleged sexual impropriety on the part of Clinton. Without further verification, that's all that can be said here (similar to someone who makes an accusation from a member of the current regime without testifying under oath). Delete. B.Wind (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2008 (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.