Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Uchitel

Add links
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 was delete. I've looked through this debate, and there are rather even amounts of discussion for either side (albeit not the same !vote count). The delete !votes are far more compelling and cite stronger policy than the keep !votes, and the consensus (by percentage) mostly leans toward deleting the article. Therefore per my full reading of the discussion, it warrants deletion. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 06:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Uchitel[edit]

Rachel Uchitel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Marginal WP:BLP. Her most significant coverage came in a tabloid. There is very little information that cannot be covered elsewhere and we do not need this coatrack. Grsz11 04:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep Delete. (Changing my vote.) Her biggest claim to fame is was being the target of vicious tabloid gossip, which appears to be totally unfounded, and she appears to be doing everything she can to avoid being slandered. This makes made her notable, but now it also speaks to BLP concerns which would easily warrant deletion. // Internet Esquire (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Tiger Woods: She really hasn't done anything notable yet, merge for now.--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 04:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I started this article, and I started it with multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources that don't discuss the Woods incident. I was actually surprised with all the articles, over about eight years, that mentioned her. She obviously meets the WP:GNG. She probably passed WP:NEWS before the Woods thing happened. At this point, if you want this deleted, you'll have to go beyond policy. The prolonged period of coverage has already happened (almost 10 years), the reliable sources part is done (New York Times before this Woods incident even happened), and the significant coverage is covered (10s of articles just on her are already written). After all our rules were satisfied years ago, now 10s of articles a day start coming out. Done. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Tiger Woods Delete: I don't really see how a "attention-seeker" tiger "might" have had an affair with is worth of having an article on WP. Back in 2001 she was looking for her fiance Andy O'Grady who perished during the 9/11 incident and thats the most we find about her. I don't see any other relevance..--Warpath (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I change my mind. I really can't find anything else worth noting. If the "affair" thing turns out to be true, then a one sentence line could be added to TW's article under 'controversies' but thats about it...--Warpath (talk) 07:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not really possible to merge with the main article Tiger Woods, but still notable enough. If Uchitel is only notable for this particular event, however, a decent compromise might be to create a separate article about the car accident, such as the 2009 Tiger Woods car accident and merge this article into the new article... --Hapsala (talk) 12:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When I go to Wikipedia I also like to read about "gossip" that may have a bit of truth in it - specially when it is all over the News and in Google's hottest trends (Remember: Democracy is voting by our feet and going to the ballot. If so many people want to know about a person serve it to your readers and mark it as 'not confirmed' or so). Specially then when all the other gossip magazines are full of stories. That is the moment I turn to Wikipedia and see which stories have been quoted by Wikipedia, because I know that the people who edit Wikipedia come from many different backgrounds and mostly do not work for a tabloid or a businesswire. They do not work for a profit of wikipedia. As a normal user it is very interesting to see the different links that have been reported in Wikipedia about a runup of a gossip theme or another kind of news story. Also: I know that Wikipedia does not have annoying pop-ups or flash or any other of that stuff. I like Wikipedia because it is not run by a professor and his assistants. This should not be merged into Tiger Woods simply because Rachel Uchitel is not Tiger Woods.--zdavatz 13:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:NOT#NEWS Secret account 13:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible delete Coatrack that fails WP:BLP, all the sources are related to tabloid sources, or source the tabloids. Tabloids aren't reliable coverage. Doesn't even deserve a merge to the Tiger Woods article because of the concern with sources. Secret account 13:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can anyone provide a detailed explanation with quotes from NOT and BLP that lead to a delete decision? I might change my vote. They didn't have anything the last time I looked, but our policies may have changed since then. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BLP1E, the only reason why the article on Uchitel was created was because of her "supposed" relationship with Woods. That's a one event right there. Wikipedia isn't the place for tabloid gossip. Also verifiability plays a major factor. The only sources of the relationship are related to the tabloids. Many times the tabloids twist the facts around to create a story for money. Who wouldn't want to read a story that Tiger Woods is cheating. Because of the nature of the tabloids, they shouldn't be considered as a reliable source for verifiability. As for the picture of Uchitel holding her late fiance picture, it's sad but there are many victims of these attacks with much more news coverage, but no article for a valid reason. Secret account 17:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason she has an article is because I started it. I admit that I looked for her wiki page because of the TW incident. But, I created the page because there was so much stuff in the google news archive. You'd need a BLP2.5 to delete. She's received really big national coverage twice, plus some other smaller stuff. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with Secret. This person has done nothing that is reliably notable. Timneu22 (talk) 14:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was skeptical at first but find there are sufficient sources out there and independent events according notability. There are more sources that can be added, I'll try to do that. Interestingly, I see that the 9/11 pictures of her were published worldwide and I see later references to those picture(s) in german papers, among others. I also take into consideration the good thoughts of zdavatz, who is closer to representing the masses of people who are reading the article and will never comment.--Milowent (talk) 14:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedily if possible. This is a WP:COATRACK article and an obvious violation of WP:BLP1E. We wouldn't have an article on her if not for the Tiger Woods car accident story, and so we shouldn't have one at all. Robofish (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She's clearly in the process of becoming famous for being famous, and the coverage is just going to keep growing. Merging to Tiger Woods is a particularly bad choice, because it appears to endorse the claim that the rumored affair is fact. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - the worse of the worse for being famous for being famous for the past eight years, but meets WP:BARE. Bearian (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - agree with Milowent's comments. If she wasn't a household name before, she is now. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least for now. Who knows, the story might blow up into something more substantive. If so, the article has the option of being merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.143.20 (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC) — 72.85.143.20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment Other way around, it can be recreated if needed. Grsz11 01:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep (3x EC!!) Three newspaper (two NY Times, one LV Review-Journal) reference is enough to pass WP:BIO in my view, plus she has had coverage in the past due to 9/11 (which makes THAT her biggest claim so far, to me), so that in itself means she is notable, even without Tigergate. The article needs to be re-written showing her ties to 9/11, along with any nightclub coverage she has received, with a short mention of Tiger. ArcAngel (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Keep - Merging with Tiger Woods is an awful idea. At this point no one has any proof of any substantial confirmation that they have any type of realistic connection to one another other than some crazy media reports. Not to mention that Rachel Uchitel has been in the news for years and even has a strong connection to 9/11. Rather than deleting the article, people should work to make this article more robust and filled in. - GCV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.236.122 (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC) — 76.115.236.122 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Don't merge to the Tiger Woods page. That's an extraordinarily bad idea. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. Delete is the best solution. Grsz11 03:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm on the fence about this one due to the current news, but without it, just being mentioned in a few articles doesn't make her notable enough to keep. However, she should not be merged with Tiger Woods, that seems like a BLP violation just waiting to happen. Dayewalker (talk) 03:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per seemingly passing WP:BIO possibly review in about six months. Petepetepetepete (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - another BLP1E. Also WP:NOTNEWS and a focal point for BLP nonsense - Allie ❤ 05:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It fails WP:NOT . She hasn't done anything significant 122.167.85.46 (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:COATRACK Wizzy…☎ 07:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Wikipedia is an encycloedia. That is to say- not the National Enquirer. All we have here is The National Enquirer saying something, and being parrotted elsewhere. TNE is not a WP:RS- in fact, the tabloids make their living by NOT being RS's. That said, while I prefer Delete my second choice would be to Keep. IMO, Merging to Tiger Woods is the worst possible option, as then we'd have two WP:BLP violations in two different articles- making the problem here much, much worse on a much more visible article. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E, notability outside recent events is insufficient, and I don't want to see celebrity gossip on Wikipedia. Unlike Wikipedia, the tabloids can consult their lawyers before publishing contentious material about living persons. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Most comments appear to be WP:INTERESTING, WP:NOHARM, WP:WAX, WP:VALINFO, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITEXISTS, WP:INTHENEWS, WP:IKNOWIT, WP:INHERITED, or WP:EVERYTHING. The plain matter of fact is that WP:ONEEVENT means that this person is NOT notable enough for their own article. Merge with Tiger Woods, or delete, and be done with it. IF this becomes a bigger event, it can always be recreated, but right now it needs to be removed. --Fbifriday (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I should say most comments in support of the article being kept. Sorry. --Fbifriday (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, most of the deletes are ignoring that she was notable before the woods incident. I imagine they haven't looked at the huge articles, which are currently only used to support singe sentences, that came out before the TW incident. - Peregrine Fisher (talk)
  • I looked at all the links in the article before I commented, I didn't think it was enough. I would have said delete if a similar article based on the pre-Tiger Woods sources had been at AFD a month or so ago. Cassandra 73 (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)(contribs) 16:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to point out that if the 9/11 photo was notable enough, or anything else she did was notable enough, she would have had an article well before the alleged affair came out. She did not, which means the only reason this article was created was to cover the supposed affair, and now people are attempting to give legitimacy to the tabloid journalism by finding every single little article she was ever mentioned in to attempt to prove her notability and keep her article. The matter of fact is that the only reason she could be notable is the affair, and that is only one event, which does not establish her notability. Also, as the affair story fails WP:NOT#NEWS, and IF the 9/11 is valid, then it still fails WP:ONEEVENT. --Fbifriday (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her earlier notability happened when WP had about 100,000 pages, so no, she wan't one of the 100,000 most important subjects in the world at that time. Notability is determined by sources, and the article currently has enough sources pre TW incident, that the TW incident isn't needed at at all. As far as every single little article, there are 10s of articles pre-Woods, and 100s since. Just say you don't like the article if that's how you feel. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinion on the matter does not matter at all, because I actually understand the arguments to avoid in an AFD discussion. My main argument for the deletion is in the last sentence of my last comment. The affair story fails WP:NOT#NEWS, and IF the 9/11 is valid enough for inclusion, then it still fails WP:ONEEVENT. "News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." This is tabloid journalism. There is no noteworthy aspects of this story other than the fact it's Tiger Woods. Thousands of people lost loved ones in 9/11, and millions have had a mistress/been mistresses. She is probably not the only one who has done both either. Also, you can not use the "Her earlier notability was early in wikipedia history, so she wasn't included" argument, as that would be like saying 9/11 itself was notable when wikipedia was new, so it didn't have an article. An article can be created later if they were truly notable. Think about the millions of people, places, things, etc, that ceased to exist before wikipedia was even thought of, but they still have an article. Because they are notable. What they did was notable. What they were was notable. If she was notable for ANYTHING before the alleged affair story broke, she would have had an article. The matter of fact is that she was not notable before, and as such, the article is based off of one event. --Fbifriday (talk) 04:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you believe that lack of an article indicates lack of notability, then we'll leave it at that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete more BLP nonsense. She's notable (maybe) only for a tabloid alleged affair. Mention on the Woods article, if at all.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing here that indicates any notability whatsoever. Just because I know someone who once took a picture of someone who was on TV doesn't mean there should be a BLP article about me. Sorry - per all the reasons listed above - not notable = delete. (see WP:N and WP:GNG for details.) — Ched :  ?  17:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability isn't inherited nor is it viral: allegedly sleeping with someone notable doesn't make you notable or Wilt Chamberlain alone gave us 20,000 new notables. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notability can arise very quickly and for strange reasons. This person has reached the Wikipedia threshold for notability. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- notable person. Keepscases (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whatever we may think about this person, she is notable. Even before "Tigergate", she was featured on the frontpage of one of the leading newspapers in New York. She has worked for several years as a tv producer at Bloomberg. The allegation about her affair with Woods is also notable, and it is actually irrelevant whether the allegations are correct or not. Finally, the article seems well sourced with references to serious media such as The New York Times, Time Magazine etc. 192.121.84.241 (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh this is why WP:BLP needs an makeover, the sources are linked to gossip, it's not the NYT etc, there are no NYT articles about her as a subject, there's no way she's notable. Being a producer for a television station isn't notable WP:INHERITED. Secret account 21:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What to you call this? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's one of those feel-good stories that almost all newspapers and tabloids such as People Magazine has every week. That source doesn't claim notability of the subject. If we have articles on every feel good story covered on a newspaper, we would have so much BLP problems it's not even a joke. There would be millions of articles on argruably non-notable people. Secret account 21:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete having an alleged affair with someone notable does not make you notable. MrMurph101 (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not news, or more appropriately, not tabloid news. Will the people who would like Wikipedia to be a real encyclopedia please raise their hands? nableezy - 22:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 9/11 coverage doesn't really satisfy "significant coverage" requirements, and the National Enquirer is hardly reliable, generally speaking. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And hell no to the merge to Tiger Woods suggestion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Front cover stories distributed worldwide, but I respect you looking at the sources and forming an opinion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      What about [1]? If it weren't for Woods, I'd think this would be enough (added to to NYT article and the other more minor sources). She was notable in her field pre-Woods. Hobit (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Absolutely not notable outside of Tiger. Coverage is not about this non-notable woman, it's about Woods's affair. Reywas92Talk 00:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There are so many non-notabilities at Wikipedia. In your opinion, Tiger's wife, as well as tens of thousands of orther non-notabilities, should also be deleted? Or did Elin Nordegren accomplish anything "notable" apart from being Tiger's wife? --Hapsala (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Its about WP:BLP. He has taken a hit with this one. Wizzy…☎
  • Delete Per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Warrah (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a coatrack article for describing BLP speculation. Notability is not transferable; you don't become notable by sleeping with someone notable or by having a personal story related to a large-scale notable event. Being a news producer is not inherently notable. - BanyanTree 01:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the above reasons sum it up nicely. Coatrack, one event, and WP:NOTNEWS. MuZemike 03:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability seems well-established by the sources. Everyking (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Bradjamesbrown -Reconsider! 04:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:BLP. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She was notable pre-Woods, she's notable post-Woods. [2] and similar articles are enough even without Woods. Hobit (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She's never been notable, and even if she did sleep with Tiger, that's not enough to make her notable. WP isn't a tabloid. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you explain why sources like [3] don't meet WP:N? Hobit (talk) 13:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I think the Tiger thing is enough by itself, and she has several other notable events besides. And Wikipedia is starting to look ridiculous with a delete discussion on every news-related page. Binarybits (talk) 13:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Given the recent coverage, if that's all there was it would be a speedy 1E issue, in my opinion. Discarding all the Tiger Woods hearsay, there are basically four sources. I don't believe "No Dress, No Vows, and Less Status in Grief" meets the requirement of significant coverage in that the subject is profiled, but it is not specifically about her. The "Vows: Rachel Uchitel and Steven Ehrenkranz" I am discarding as fluff; I know that the Washington Post's nuptials section are essentially solicitations for puff pieces which is anecdotally a widespread practice, so the fact that they appear does not speak to their notability. All that leaves is the BlackBookMag ref, which I will agree is significant enough. Ultimately, however, the lack of several of these type of source plus BLP concerns lead me to recommend outright deletion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, there's an awful lot of POV going on here. A reliable source is a reliable source. We don't get to exclude subjects because we think reliable sources shouldn't have covered something. And I don't see anything about "hearsay" or "puff pieces" in the WP:RS. Binarybits (talk) 15:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've got plenty of reliable sources that have blatantly incorrect information, do I use those sources? A reliable source means that it may be used for verification, but editors must use their good judgement as well. In this case, it's soft journalism that I would never use as proof that a subject was notable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots more sources from before the Woods incident. I mean, look at all these. This isn't an AfD where people are basing their deletes on sources, obviously, so I only added enough to easily pass 1E, BLP, and NOTE. If I thought someone might change their mind based on the addition of sources, I would have added more. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability whatsoever apart from the Tiger Woods controversy. The article makes no effort to assert notability, and obviously the Sept. 11 stuff does not maker her notable. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Obviously not notable outside of Tiger Woods. --TorsodogTalk 16:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I do think this link shows that coverage of her predates the Wood's thing by years. Hobit (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - standard BLP concerns for these situations. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not inherited + clearly WP:BLP1E. At best we can mention her in Woods related article, but lets not fool ourselves into thinking that we can write an encyclopedic biographical article. Abecedare (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you looked at the sources? They have VASTLY more biographical information than we have for 90%+ of our BLPs. Hobit (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did look at the article and the sources. I don't consider, "appeared on the front page of the New York Post holding a picture of O'Grady. This picture was published worldwide." type trivia to be encyclopedic, biographical, or notable. I realize that not everyone will agree; that's the reason to have these discussions to see where policy based consensus lies. Abecedare (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, she was getting mentions in reliable sources before the Tiger Woods incidents, and she still is. --AW (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient coverage for her own article. + its own concerns as a BLP of marginal notability. Aditya Ex Machina 15:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E. The article's a Coatrack, using any info that can be dug up on her as filler for the main reason even the author admits the article was created. If I appeared in a news segment covering my experience with losing my home in a hurricane, that wouldn't warrant an article, so that shouldn't be justification for notoriety years later when I have an affair with a celebrity (WP:MASK). As she's notable ONLY because of Tiger, if she has to be anywhere, it should be on Tiger's page (WP:109PAPERS).Kingdomcarts (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Attacking the reason for creating an article is not the same as attacking the value or purpose of an article. An article can be created for a bad reason but that does not mean there is sufficient reason to delete it. Goladus (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the only real reason this article exists is because of the recent allegations of an affair. Citing the 9/11 stuff as a claim to fame is nonsense, and tacking together two completely disconnected WP:BLP1E incidents isn't an excuse to bypass WP:NOTNEWS. *** Crotalus *** 18:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gah entire article on her from 2008 [4]. It covers the 9/11 stuff, but isn't about it. And obviously the Woods thing isn't there either. That's _three_ things, one of which is huge. Clearly not a one event wonder. Hobit (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This still doesn't automatically establish that she is notable enough. --TorsodogTalk 22:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know that anything automatically establishes notability. But if the reason to delete is WP:BLP1E, having reliable sources that meet the requirement of WP:N from before the event in question go a long way toward showing that WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. Hobit (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • (EC)Her notability is automatically established if you follow our guidelines and policies. The only real argument presented for deltetion here has been the sources don't help establish notability, based on an editor being able to look at a New York Times article and declare it kosher to notability or not. That's also not something we're supposed to do, but it's the closest so far to a real argument. It's pretty much moot based on the head count so far, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her occupation makes her notable and reliable sources exist. One reason there are so many delete arguments is because of the recent publicity. Being famous for having an affair is not a disqualification. Goladus (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As having a blip in a magazine is not a qualification. Everyone seems to be in general agreement that the affair doesn't establish WP:N, so the question is whether being a night club manager who lost someone in the attacks is notworthy or not. Having two BLP1E's shouldn't be reason enough to circumvent NOTNEWS, especially since the first would never be a consideration for notoriety without the recent allegations.Kingdomcarts (talk) 02:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notable only because of a relation to Tiger Woods. Tangurena (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has per delete votes. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She's a very notable adulteress. She hasn't only had an alleged affair with Tiger, but with David Boreanaz too, [5]. KingMorpheus (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then why the heck isn't that in the article? Right...because it's from an unreliable tabloid, thehollywoodgossip.com. And even if that were true, it's not notable. Reywas92Talk 00:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's plenty more where that came from.[6] The amount of sources that exist for this girl is redic. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then put it in the darn article! (With reliable sources of course). But this gossip still isn't notable. Non-notable event + non-notable event + non-notable event =/= notability. Reywas92Talk 00:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's no point in working on the article until we know if it will be deleted or not. - Peregrine Fishertalk) (contribs) 01:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I disagree, as if enough pre-Tigergate sources can be added to establish notability that can only help the article. As it stands, someone IS adding references to it at the moment. I would have thought that her 9/11 connection was notable enough, but I see some disagreement with that. ArcAngel (talk) 05:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. She might have had an affair with Tiger Woods, but it's not confirmed. In any case, she's not notable at all. ScienceApe (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. Dismas|(talk) 11:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Uchitel came to attention post-9/11, so a redirect to Tiger when she has presently made no positive statement confirming an affair seems at best assumptive POV. The additional sources provided by her association to Tiger provides many secondary sources, added to to by additional digging by the tabloids into her private life. It is marginal as to whether she merits an entry, but there are many sources and articles, and a deletion at present would just bring hassle to the other associated articles replicating common information (9/11, private life, Tiger) - --Trident13 (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect per WP:BLP1E. Were it not for the Woods connection, what is left would be a clear case of non-notability. A couple of mentions over several years does not add up to anything approaching notability. Kevin (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I do not see how this can be considered WP:COATRACK in its current form. For this to be the case there would have to be a lot more than two sentences on the Tiger Woods story (and if COATRACK did apply then the solution would be to remove the extraneous information not to delete the entire article). Therefore the question is whether or not the subject of the article is notable. She has received a reasonable amount of coverage and it is not all to do with the Woods story. As always some of the sources are better than others but my overall impression is that they are sufficient to verify the notability of the subject (although as shown by this debate it is not clear cut and it is going to come down to each individual editor's personal feeling based on the notability guidelines, it is difficult to give any conclusive evidence to support either point of view). Just because Wikipedia is not the news does not mean that things that are in the news shouldn't have articles. As with WP:COATRACK, WP:BLP and WP:BLP1E, it is fine to use WP:NOTNEWS to support your position but if you only provide the link and no further explanation then in my opinion it is very hard to know exactly what your point is. Most of these pages (coatrack, BLP etc) are quite lengthy and make numerous points so quoting the whole page with no further explanation is at best unclear (this is not to have a go at the previous editor Kevin (who has explained his reasoning) or anyone particular here, it's just that this seems to be a regular problem throughout Wikipedia). Mah favourite (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: If this does close as no consensus, I'm not aware of any "default to delete" option per the earlier close that was subsequently postponed a day.--Milowent (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One wonders what the point is of having these discussions if a basic rule like that has not been settled. Neutron (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it has been settled, but some try to breach it from time to time and get overturned on DRV.--Milowent (talk) 04:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep in it's current state. Still marginally notable but.. meh. -- œ™ 09:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO - with or without the Woods rumours (for that is all they are) I do not see any standalone notability. Oh, and the article is a WP:BLP timebomb waiting to explode. Particularly agree with observations made by Ched, Carlossuares and Alison above. Nancy talk 10:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, merging with the Woods article would be a very bad idea indeed. Nancy talk 10:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, WP:BLP1E. Tovojolo (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 10 - 20 of the delete votes do not address the references available, and the time period over which they occur. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I realize I am swimming against the tide here, but the article and its sources show that this person was already sufficiently famous before the Tiger Woods allegations that she would have merited an article. Among other things, this means that BLP1E does not apply here. I agree with earlier comments that she is mainly "famous for being famous," but she is, nevertheless. It also seems to me that our "notability" guideline is somewhat of a misnomer. "Notable" implies a value judgment as to whether the person has done something of note. But the criteria for "notability" really measure whether the person is "noted" -- whether they deserve it or not. This person, whether rightly or wrongly, seems to be "noted", and therefore in Wikipedia parlance, "notable." Neutron (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Clearly notable for several unrelated events and media coverages. The article clearly reports these several instances, with plenty of reliable sources. Most !delete votes seem to even not have read the article, just assuming that she's there only because of Tiger Woods. But that's not the case. --Cyclopiatalk 23:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She denied having a relationship with Woods, thats the extent of her notability. Managing a night club, being someone's granddaughter, or holding a picture of O'Grady does not make her notable.--Ezeu (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete We are not a tabloid. It takes more than a single incident of infamy involving a celebrity to make you notable enough for a bio. It doesn't matter how many newspaper mentions there are: she's still just a nightclub manager known for one incident involving Tiger Woods. Steven Walling 06:13, 8 December 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rachel_Uchitel&oldid=1192098931"