Deletion of Rachel Uchitel (2nd nomination)

Comment: This individual has been the |verifiable subject of significant news coverage to include discussions on Oprah, the View and even an SNL parody. Funny or sad thing thing is I don't watch the women's programs but am aware of them
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: per . Surprised we even have to go through this as she is much ''less'' in the news now than the last time it was decided to delete the article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: She's now got ''acres'' of news coverage over many years, so  doesn't apply at all. Count the events: She was known for the coverage of her fiance dying in 9/11, she was known for getting remarried, she is known as a nightclub hostess (and was known for this before the Woods scandal), she is known for the Tiger Woods scandal (obviously), she is known for another affair, and it now appears that she's appearing in Playboy. 6=1? Even O'Brien only tried 2 + 2 = 5. Deletionists here are just trying to censor this bio now, there is no valid justification under policy for deletion and any admin who closes as delete will have a tough time on their hands picking out a valid reason other than . Remember that it's not a vote! She's not hiding from her notoriety, so I have no idea who they think they're protecting. Deletion voters are the new puritans, trying to keep 'unseemly' subjects from readers' eyes, despite her appearing all over the rest of the internet - we could provide a balanced summary of her life to counter all the gossip, but no, the deletionists prefer to 'purify' Wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)