Deletion of List of Tiger Woods' alleged affairs

Comment: Sick fascination" falls under the general heading of "unencyclopedic" and "Wikipedia is ot a tabloid
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: WP:BLP also. Has anyone written #Tabloid yet
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: blatant violation of . I don't think we have similar 'list of affairs' articles for ''anyone'', and nor should we, least of all for living people. There might, just possibly, be a case for a more well-developed article on 'Tiger Woods' affairs controversy' or something like that (though I think  would still apply), but this is just flat-out unacceptable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: The Tiger Woods page has an excellent take on this at Tiger Woods#TWInfidelity. It is not large enough to justify getting its own page at this time. The Tiger Woods article is long and therefore this issue is not given  weight requiring a child article to achieve summary style. Maybe later. Not now. Not even close. This forked article offers nothing -- it is poorly written and adds nothing that the Tiger Woods page does well and will be a breeding ground for  violations. Let the eyes of the editors focus on the Tiger Woods page.  While this issue is red hot (and tabloid heavy), it is best to keep it where it is. As time goes on and if and when this becomes so large that a summary at Tiger Woods and a child article is required, then so be it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:undue)

Comment: This is the sort of thing I look at with a sick sort of fascination. I'm not sure "sick fascination" is the stuff encyclopedias are made of. Seems to fall afoul of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)