The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. Even if you discard the usual "It's notable" !votes there are still some good arguments for keeping. No prejudice to renomination, of course, especially as it's a BLP. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Uchitel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article appears to be about a person notable for one event only, namely her possible involvement with Tiger Woods. I can't see any indication this person is notable outside of that. TNXMan 17:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: This article already appears to have been deleted once, with the same concerns. TNXMan 17:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Notable celebrity with massive continuing media coverage. Classic inclusionist vs. exclusionist debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtbobwaysf (talk • contribs) 17:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Your argument doesn't address the initial concern: this person has only received coverage for one event and doesn't seem notable outside of that event. TNXMan 17:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors may disagree as to importance, but Uchitel was also in the news a lot after 9/11 as her fiance died there. So its not a clear one event case.--Milowent (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per the last AfD. Joe Chill (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:1ERussianReversal (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E and the previous AFD, which ended in delete, since she hasn't become more notable since. Edison (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & Salt She's only known for one event, and all of her other jobs are in the eyes of a normal person incredibly menial. Nate • (chatter) 03:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yesterday's flash-in-the-pan news. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect? She is a likely search term. What are the arguments against redirecting to Tiger Woods section on scandal? Vartanza (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt If there was proof of an affair with Woods, a redirect might be in order, but it's denied - so there might be BLP problems there. Otherwise, her relationships are not noteworthy, and she's doing a job - like so many of us. Peridon (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per significant coverage in reliable sources. I wrote previously about the last deletion here, where you can see more of my thoughts on this article if you are interested. (Note the 1st AfD should have closed no consensus, default to keep. But it was closed as "default to delete" which caused major drama, so the rationale was edited then upheld after more drama on deletion review. Cheers.--Milowent (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The link to the DRV is here if anyone would like to peruse it. TNXMan 13:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - She was notable over a nine year period when she was deleted last time. Still not a flash in the pan. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment No, she was not notable, per the consensus of the previous AFD. The Wikipedia community did not determine that she had been "notable for 9 years" as you claim. Quite the opposite. Edison (talk)

• Delete When you take the "affair" out of the article you are left with a thoroughly unnotable person. It is therefore very much a WP:BLP1E despite this article's attempts to play up other parts of the subject's biography. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you take "affair" out though? That's not this article. We have scads of articles on alleged affair persons, e.g., Gennifer Flowers.--Milowent (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that should be taken out of the article, just that without it there's nothing of note left. Therefore, she's only notable for one (alleged) event. The likes of Gennifer Flowers are a little different in my view: there was ongoing significant coverage in respect of ongoing events. Now you might be of the view that Uchitel is in the same category, which is fine - I don't. BLP1E is a policy but it's a policy that can be difficult to apply. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Edison and MKativerata. There has been about 10 years of coverage on the woman. You could take out the affair, and she would still pass the WP:GNG. In fact, because I knew that knee jerk jotes were coming in the last AfD, I specifically wrote an article about her that passed the WP:GNG, and didn't mention the affair at all. It doesn't really matter though. I've voted to keep many an article that didn't pass the GNG, and it was kept. It's only fair that we can delete notable articles based on our gut as well. Just be happy you have the numbers, instead of repeating that she isn't notable when she does happen to pass the guideline. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Added second affair with David Boreanaz that was run in Huffington Post. Now you 'Single Event' people need to find a new excuse to delete. She will also pose for Playboy this summer and that is now in the article. Is that notable?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtbobwaysf (talk • contribs) 09:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck your !vote, but only because you've already !voted once. TNXMan 11:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i supplemented jtbobwaysf's cite, as that recent press coverage went far beyond the huff post. Confirmation of the affair did follow; i added cites to the story as reported in the Times of India, Daily Mail, and Toronto Sun.--Milowent (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nothing has changed since the last AFD. Nancy ^talk 12:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. 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.Jeppiz (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles like this get re-created all the time, oftentimes people don't notice it.--Milowent (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I don't blame the re-creator, whoever that is. I'm merely pointed out that the person's notability has already been discussed, the decision was to delete, and since then her notability has, if anything, decreased.Jeppiz (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)\[reply]

To be a bit more accurate (though it got very convoluted last time), the original close of the last AfD was "no consensus" but then the closer "defaulted" to delete". This caused tons of drama (trout slaps to closer, etc.), but the "no consensus" finding was appropriate. Later, the closer amended the rationale and the DRV ultimately upheld the deletion.--Milowent (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete just like last time, and salt it this time. Absolutely nothing has changed- she's still a textbook case of BLP1E, and a not particularly notable 1E at that. Being one of a celebrity's mistresses doesn't equal encyclopaedic notability. Courcelles (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She's more notable than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debrahlee Lorenzana, at least in terms of ongoing coverage!--Milowent (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic seems to be notable for multiple matters - 9/11, Tiger Woods, her nightclub role, Playboy, etc. The BLP1E claim is therefore false. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the fact that her role in 9/11 is completely non-notable, not to mention her nightclub role. So BLP1E remains very much the case here.Jeppiz (talk) 07:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is her 9/11 role "non-notable"? Its been noted innumerable times in press stories from 2001 to the present. The only place that Uchitel's small role in 9/11 is deemed non-notable is in AfD dicussions on wikipedia. Meanwhile german newspapers republish her 9/11 pictures.--Milowent (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Note that close of the DRV explicitly gacve leave to recreate and try again but I'm still only seeing one really significant event here and having an affair with tiger woods does not make you independantly notable even if there are other minor roles. my opinion is that this doesn't add up to notability so I vote Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She's now got acres of news coverage over many years, so WP:BLP1E 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 WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 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. Fences&Windows 00:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the content instead of speculating about other editors' motives. Saying that all who favour deletion want to "censor" Wikipedia and are "puritans" is about as unintelligent and as irrelevant to the discussion as saying that your motives to favour keeping the article is to wank off to her picture. It's irrelevant to the discussion, it's impossible to know, it's commenting on editors instead of content and it is most likely to be completely wrong.Jeppiz (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The way things seem to be going, people will be notable for not having had an affair with Woods.... As it is, having an affair with him might merit a place in List of Tiger Woods's Mistresses but I can't see it as a basis for a separate article. How many other fiances or fiancees died in 9/11? And wives/husbands/partners? Are they all individually notable? Puritan? Wikipedia is not censored. I, for one, am not trying to 'protect' her. I just don't think she's worth an article. Peridon (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having a relative who died in 911 doesn't matter. Receiving lots of coverage because of it is what matters. Same with affairs, and really anything. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So when was the article about her first written? If she's notable for other things than being Wood's mistress, how come nobody thought to write about her before that?Jeppiz (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was written as least as far back as November 2009, I don't know before that.--Milowent (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point I'm making. The article was written because of Woods (the story broke in November 2009), nobody thought her 9/11-role, her marriage or her night club to be notable before her affair with Woods was published in November 2009.Jeppiz (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When she first became notable, we were adding missing articles on Entire countries. And there was no notability guideline. She wasn't a priority, but an article could have been written. I can't remember if I created, or just expanded the first article on her. But, before I did so, I did a google news search and saw articles going back 8 years. That's when I went to work on that version. I specifically left out the affair to show that it wasn't even needed to pass notability. A controversial admin came along and used the article to push his view that BLP AFDs should be closed as delete, and it was deleted. An odd DRV ensued which upheld it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - She has had sustained coverage over multiple years for multiple reasons. Prior to the alleged Tiger Woods affair, she might have scraped by on the notability bar, but adding the coverage from the alleged affair places notability beyond just scraping by. -- Whpq (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable for the alleged Tiger Woods affair, but weirdly this barely rates a mention in the article. Still worth saving because of the media coverage she gained, however. BlackCab (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Recommend closure of WP:OLD. ----moreno oso (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I ran trough the sources, and i would point out that most of them just mention her name in the passing. I would conclude that the 9/11 and nightclub waitress parts in the biography are little more then a filler; The article's themselves detail the nightclub and the 9/1 aftermath, not Rachel Uchitel. That leaves us with the Tiger Woods issue. I would argue that the issue itself is absolutely notable, but i would equally point out that it is only notable because of the involvement of tiger woods. Therefor i would say that a mention in tiger woods article is more then sufficient to explain the situation. To conclude: I would cite WP:BLP1E on this article, and i would point out that this article resembled a WP:COATRACK where all non notable coverage attempts to cover up the 1E issue. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 15:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - 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.----moreno oso (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The article has just been sourced with a reliable from the NY Times which detailed a cancelled news conference about the alleged affair as reported by CBS News - both reputable news sources with editorial oversight. Additionally, the The Independent, a United Kingdom newspaper, has reported that Uchitel is the reason the "alleged affairs" became news. Please see: Sport on TV: Tiger was so deeply embedded he couldn't see Woods for trees www.independent.co.uk. ----moreno oso (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then those sources would be an improvement to the section about the affair on the Tiger Woods page, but being the reason for an affair becoming known is hardly enough to warrant an article.Jeppiz (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a value judgment about the subject, but the proper inquiry is whether there is significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, which there undoubtedly is. Unfortunately, when an article subject is a female and sex is involved even in part, some editors ignore policies and guidelines in order to favor deletion. No doubt that may be part of the reason why this AfD is still open after 9 days. But retaining it will do no harm to the project. I do not see a consensus to delete the article, I see a good faith debate about the extent of coverage of the individual.--Milowent (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I may correct you, the proper inquire is whether there is significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources for more than one event. And once again, I don't know why you and others favouring "keep" feel this urge to come with completely redundant, irrelevant and unintelligent speculations about the motives of those who do not share your views. Apart from being contrary to Wikipedia policies, it only reveals your lack of factual arguments.Jeppiz (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as many editors in this review have stated, she is notable for more than one event. Post 9/11 coverage, for whatever reason includes stuff like [1], and [2], in addition to an assortment of profiles. It may be because of her looks. But for whatever reason, that coverage exists. It predates any of the Tiger Woods stuff. -- Whpq (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeppiz, I hate to step out, but I can only discern that you have a lack of knowledge of the coverage of the subject. The 9/11 photos she was in were published worldwide, and get referenced years later.[3],[4],[5] (Toronto Sun 2002, "Woman's grief captured for world to see"), [6] (The Mirror, UK, 2004) ("THE photograph of Rachel Uchitel crying as she handed out posters of her missing fiance Andy O'Grady is one of the most poignant images of September 11."), [7](calling her "the face of loss" from an "iconic photo" from 9/11), [8] Bild (big german paper, 2009)("Everyone remembers the pictures of Rachel Uchitel, who ran crying through the streets of New York looking for her fiancée – today she is a prominent It-Girl") Iconic photos like this have supported articles by themselves about their subjects, e.g., Afghan Girl. The best we can say for this AfD is that there is a debate over whether BLP1E applies, and no consensus that it does.--Milowent (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right about a lot of things. I'm not American, and I'm the first to admit that I may be less up to date with American news coverage. Needless to say it's as relevant as any other news coverage, I am in no way applying that coverage mainly in American media wouldn' be enough. I, for one, has never heard about this picture and since I haven't seen a link to it posted anywhere, I wonder how well-known it is. Don't get me wrong, this is not an attempt to say that it is not well-know, it might well be and mine is an honest question about it. I'm sure you can easily find a few links to it, so perhaps you could one? And I agree that this is a borderline case. She seems to be the kind of person who is never really famous but have been on the fringe of some very notable events. Perhaps that's enough to warrant an article about her, although I'm still not sure.Jeppiz (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the photo is all over the internet, but here's a reliable source that has it. It's the one where she's crying. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you google image search "9/11 uchitel" you'll find more copies, put Peregrine Fisher has noted it correctly. A bit more sad than Tourist guy, another notable 9/11 "image".--Milowent (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant keep. I argued to delete at the last AFD, and am tempted to do so again, but looking at the references objectively it seems that she has now received sufficient attention from independent sources over a long period of time to demonstrate that she is notable, and not merely part of a flash-in-the-pan news story. (Much as I wish it were otherwise.) I'm dubious about the reliability of TMZ and Huffington Post as sources, but even ignoring those ones, I think there is now enough here to justify a Wikipedia biography. Robofish (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. Assuming the 9-11 coverage is de minimus, she is still receiving coverage for this one event, so we don't know yet if there will not be long-lasting notablity. If this is not closed as a keep, I would urge revisiting this in a year or so to see whether she truly is a WP:BLP1E.--PinkBull 19:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.