Deletion of Rachel Uchitel

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: speedily if possible. This is a  article and an obvious violation of . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: 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 - 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  violations in two different articles- making the problem here much, much worse on a much more visible article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:BLP)

Comment: the above reasons sum it up nicely. Coatrack, one event, and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Sorry, but Wikipedia |isn't your tabloid
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Most comments appear to be , , , , , , , , , or . The plain matter of fact is that  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INTERESTING||WP:NOHARM||WP:WAX||WP:VALINFO||WP:ILIKEIT||WP:ITEXISTS||WP:INTHENEWS||WP:IKNOWIT||WP:INHERITED||WP:EVERYTHING||WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: another BLP1E. Also  and a focal point for BLP nonsense
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per #NEWS and . The article's a |Coatrack, using any info that can be dug up on her as filler for the main reason even wnership of articles|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 (). As she's notable ONLY because of Tiger, if she has to be anywhere, it should be on Tiger's page (
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:BLP1E||WP:COATRACK||WP:O||WP:MASK||WP:109PAPERS)

Comment: It fails  . She hasn't done anything significant Special:Contributions/122.167.85.46|122.167.85.46
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per  and  - 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  timebomb waiting to explode. Particularly agree with observations  made by Ched, Carlossuares and Alison above
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:BIO||WP:BLP)

Comment: per nom and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: Per  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: as per seemingly passing  possibly review in about six months
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: 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  and  for details
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:GNG)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: WP:COATRACK|Coatrack that fails , 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:RS)

Comment: 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  incidents isn't an excuse to bypass 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: non-notable, 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Notability is not inherited + clearly . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: per , 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: I do not see how this can be considered  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 ,  and 1E, it is fine to use OTNEWS 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:N||WP:COATRACK||WP:BLP||WP:BLP1E||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: 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 .  She probably passed  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NEWS)