Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rielle Hunter

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 merge‎ to John Edwards extramarital affair. ✗plicit 06:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rielle Hunter

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:BLP1E. The claim to notability here rests in the extramarital affair, and that information can be merged into John Edwards, John Edwards extramarital affair, and John Edwards 2008 presidential campaign. The separate information about being the inspiration for a character in a book + their father being part of a scandal aren't relevant for notability purposes, nor is her film career (Hunter is not named in our cast lists for either Overboard or Ricochet even though this article calls them Hunter's most notable appearances). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Politics, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hunter wrote a book that has been cited in scholarly articles.1. She is discussed, still, in news stories about political scandals 2, 3, 4. She writes about equestrian sports 5. Deleting this article was discussed on the talk page 14 years ago ... and it's still here. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaireeodell: Which of those websites/news stories contributes to her notability under WP:NBIO/WP:NBASIC? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter is notable in both a conventional sense (for better or worse her relationship changed the course of history and continues to factor in discussions of political issues) and by WP:GNG. The current article includes reliable sources focused on Hunter as the main topic. The "separate information" (the Poole character appears in five books by the way) may seem less relevant if the topic is John Edwards, but the topic is Hunter here. With hundreds of scholarly articles 1 referring to Hunter and with her abiding presence in discussions of political scandals, I think it would be a mistake to make her a mere section of the Edwards entries. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaireeodell: Thanks for the reply, but it doesn't address my question. Which specific sources do you believe contribute towards her notability in the Wikipedia sense? I know that there are many sources out there that mention her, but so far I'm not seeing the sort of significant coverage that meets the GNG/NBASIC standard, let alone WP:BIO1E. However, if I have missed some coverage, please fill me in. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the author of a notable and bestselling autobiography. What Really Happened was reviewed in Kirkus and was widely discussed in the press. It easily passes WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. If her life story is notable, then she must be notable. pburka (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pburka: NBOOK is a notability guideline for books. It is completely separate from the notability of authors. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm saying that the subject and author of a notable biography must be notable. That's just common sense. pburka (talk) 01:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Pburka: Can you point me to the provision in WP:N or a sub-page that says that? I'm very open to being wrong, but I've never heard this before. Edit: I've realized that you're probably thinking of WP:AUTHOR, but that provision is a higher bar than one single notable autobiography (and I'm not sure it's notable, but I'm happy to accept that for the sake of argument). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - The story of her life is notable. We could write an article about her autobiography, which will include most of the same information as this one, or we can just keep the existing biography. Keeping the existing article is simpler, so it's my preferred option. pburka (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to John Edwards extramarital affair. While memoir writers may sometimes have WP:BASIC notability support based on coverage of their life story, this memoir is titled What Really Happened: John Edwards, Our Daughter and Me, and seems best incorporated into an existing article based on the context and coverage (e.g. ABC News, 2012, NY Daily News 2012, Guardian Opinion 2012, Kirkus (2012) "An object lesson in misguided tell-all writing: A woman hounded by the media while raising an infant fathered by a cheating man manages to render herself unsympathetic"; Library Journal (2013) "unnecessarily cheesy, adolescent voicing that makes this unfortunate story best suited to Jerry Springer fans and Oprah whoopers"). She also published In Hindsight, What Really Happened: The Revised Edition: John Edwards, Our Daughter and Me (Hollywood Reporter, 2013, which "apologizes for both her behavior and her decision to write about it"; Vanity Fair 2013 "It is a sequel of sorts to her utterly forgotten 2012 memoir"). I have also reviewed sources with WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:BLP policies in mind, and it does not seem possible to write a balanced standalone biography article at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into John Edwards extramarital affair - known for only that event. A search for her alleged professional film related career prior to Edwards, comes up lacking in substance. She would not warrant a stand-alone article without Edwards. Grundle2600 who created the article is under an indef ban for creating approximately 393 socks.(Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Grundle2600). — Maile (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
393 socks? wow, that's quite the time and effort involved. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments are split between those advocating Keep vs. those preferring a Merge. Given the age of this scandal, I'm surprised there are not earlier AFDs for this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I'd prefer a merge; outside of that "event", there isn't really anything for notability. Scandal perhaps, nothing for GNG. Non-notable as a producer, the book/author isn't meeting AUTHOR that I can see. And frankly, the article has more info about the affair than the rest of the individual's life, pointing to what's potentially notable in the story. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into John Edwards extramarital affair per the rationales of Beccaynr and Oaktree b. Not independently notable, but there's some noteworthy content here that's relevant to the aforementioned article. So let's merge, shall we? A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful, as per above. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into John Edwards extramarital affair per Oaktree b. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2023 (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.