Deletion of Linda Tripp

Comment: per  (or anti-snow?) anyway it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: 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  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  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  and  due to what's now going on at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 21#Jill Kelley and Wikipedia: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 OTPAPER, 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS||WP:DONOTDISRUPT||WP:POINT||WP:NOTPAPER)

Comment: There's nothing here which couldn't be adequately covered in the context of the Lewinsky scandal. As such,  applies
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: 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  in any case
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CFORK)

Comment: 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 . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)