Demand for too many sources 

Some people have demanded way more sources than are necessary for this article. For example, the request for a secondary source for the fact that The Inquirer has criticized the publication of EG's real name. This is utter rubbish. From WP:NOR:

An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims.

The section in question states: "The Inquirer has criticized this deletion[8] as well as the revelation of the model's real name during the deletion discussions by Wikipedia users (the model's name and identity had been kept confidential by The Inquirer).[9]"

We comply with (1): the claim is only descriptive (it reproduces what the Inq stated in their article) and is EASILY verifiable. The information is also not interpreted, thus we also comply with (2). As such, I'm removing the redundant second source.

Further, I recently added a citation for Mike Magee's quote from BusinessWeek. Again, I am removing this. The quote appears in the earlier reference to the same BusinessWeek article, and citations are allowed to span multiple sentences.