Deletion of Jaimee Grubbs

Comment: Claiming to have had sex with some celebrity does not confer automatic notability. Fails . Delete per  and . We are not on deadline, so if it were ever judged that someone known only for their claimed association with Wood should be included in his article, that would be the place for some brief mention. Such an addition to a protected article could be made on the talk page. It is crystall ball gazing to claim she "will be the next Monica." When she has testified before courts and congress, there might be more basis for the claim
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BLP1E||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Reporting an affair with a famous professional athlete and appearing on a low-level reality TV show is not enough to make someone notable. The information can be covered adequately in Tiger's article, making this article rather pointless. Without any evidence of continued press coverage of Grubbs (which can't be assumed), this looks like a textbook  case
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: If it were just the VH1 thing, or just the Tiger Woods thing, then it'd be an obvious delete. But her past with VH1, in my mind at least, means  isn't really applicable. I'm not sure I *like* this article, or the subject, but I just don't see the necessity for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

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

Comment: A bunch of people are citing . Here's the thing: BLP1E says that "it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." But there's no event article for the scandal. This means we'd wind up merging information about Grubbs into the Tiger Woods article, which seems particularly inappropriate given that Tiger hasn't acknowledged the affair to have taken place. So my keep vote stands, but if we are going to delete the article based on BLP1E, it seems to me that implies we need to create an article about the scandal. Because there's certainly more than enough reliable sources to cover the Grubbs allegations ''somewhere'', and I don't think the Tiger Woods article is the place to do it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: yet another . If someone's only in the news because someone famous reportedly had an affair with them, we shouldn't have an article on them
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

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

Comment: redirecting to Tiger Woods if editors there do decide to add material regarding this (and it's a notable event in his life, I imagine that will happen). Regarding the four points above: 1) In the |biography of a living person, being notable for only one event 1E|absolutely is reason to delete. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. 2) We are not on a |deadline. There is no rush to get this stuff into any article, it's more important that we get it right than do it immediately. 3) We don't |wait to see what develops with an article in place, we wait for material for it to develop ''first'', and then and only then write the article. Reiterated, no deadline. 4) Being on a reality show does not confer |notability, I can't find any evidence that she received substantial coverage for that. The sources cited in the article only mention her reality show appearance very briefly
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:BLP1E||WP:TIND||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:N)

Comment: outside of the Tiger story, insufficent secondary sources. Hence fails . Delete per  and . Rgds
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BLP1E||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Oh lawd, this is so textbook  it isn't even funny.  No.  Really.  It is not funny
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: per .  Saying that she is anywhere near as notable for one event as Lewinsky or Rice is stretching matters
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: per Victor Victoria and . Not notable enough yet
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: This is the definition of .  I think the world can wait for an admin to add the relevant info to the Tiger Woods article. Celebrity gossip is really not so important that "breaking news" about the rumored sexual indiscretions of a popular golfer have to immediately be covered in an article.  Let's get back to reality. WP is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)