Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Tiger Woods' alleged affairs


 * 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   delete. There isn't really a strong case for keeping the article. Arguments for keeping included WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:USEFUL, and WP:VALINFO. The BLP concerns raised by the deletion side are substantial. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

List of Tiger Woods' alleged affairs
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper nor is a collection of indiscriminate information. Non encyclopedic topic. RadioFan (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:BLP also. Has anyone written WP:NOT yet? Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep this is the proper forum to organise and cite all the alleged affairs, together with information confirming or denying the stories validity. There are too many to fit comfortably into the main article.Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, this is not the proper forum. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip site or message board forum.  TJ   Spyke   03:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Un-fork and Delete; this matter is properly covered at Tiger Woods. Devoting an entire article to this subject gives it undue weight, in violation of WP:BLP. Andrea105 (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I moved the page so that the title would also permit some information about the car accident and the fallout for his public image, career, and endorsements. Keeping John Edwards extramarital affair turned in part on the effect it had on his career. It may be too soon to tell for Woods, but early indications are not good. This article could be a well-written fork, but it's not off to a good start.--Chaser (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There are massive BLP concerns (right now there are nothing but allegations, there is no actual proof of what women Woods was actually involved with), Wikipedia is not a news site or gossip site, and I don't see how this is encyclopedic. The title of the article alone says it: ALLEGED affairs. Even if this was a list of confirmed affairs I doubt the article would be worthy of keeping, a list of women claiming to have slept with Woods is not even close to deserving of an article.  TJ   Spyke   03:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Tiger Woods lost his sponsorship with Gillette and kept his sponsorship with Nike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.73.145.187 (talk) 04:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Another similar article was deleted quickly this past week. Rachel Uchitel was deleted a week ago as well and is in DRV right now, but that article was probably the least biased source of information about Uchitel in my opinion.  In the long term, though, I would envision an article like this ending up a part of the Tiger Woods article.--Milowent (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete 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 WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Describing your fascination as "sick" is just your highly subjective assessment of your own personal motives for reading the article. It's irrelevant to the rationale behind this deletion discussion. Dgf32 (talk) 08:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment "Sick fascination" falls under the general heading of "unencyclopedic" and "Wikipedia is WP:Not a tabloid" Edison (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This is an encyclopaedia not a gossip column. Woods' personal life is of some interest but a list of this nature is not needed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete BLP issues, WP:NOT issues, and in general, an unnecessary fork from the main Tiger article. -- Mike (Kicking222) 04:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Per Nom. Wikipedia is NOT a gossip column. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.91.187 (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The article is notable since this event has change the outlook of golf as it is. It unchained a series of events that need to be listed. This is the one of them, readers will need it. Thanks.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and fix. Is needed but I agree at this current state it is not very encyclopedic. Needs some experienced editors to fix, improve and expand. Kiwiteen123 (talk) 06:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete See a previous nomination for List of Tiger Woods' lovers. It's pretty much all tabloids, it's likely many of the actual subjects without the prodding of money will never talk, and the word "alleged" should never be used in any article title.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 06:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP is not a tabloid, nor a newspaper, nor a collection of speculative material. When all his affairs are confirmed (I believe 11 women so far have attested to an affair with Mr. Woods) we can discuss existence of this article. But this won't survive, it's pure gossip and inertia of the moment. > RUL3R >trolling >vandalism  06:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per Alan Liefting and RUL3R. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Also, this list is too short to have it's own article.  Ji m bö V1  (talk) 07:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is scant information regarding these romances, and secondly, there is enough information in Tiger Woods' article as it is. And WP:NOTTHESUN, and the article is short, although that is no reason to delete in itself. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There might eventually be a need for an article on the subject, but this is not that article, and it's not the time to write it. Any article that is eventually developed should consider the events from a historical perspective. The article at John Edwards extramarital affair is the type of article that could be appropriate. Dgf32 (talk) 08:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect. It's a content fork at best, and the section in the main article is far far better written than this "list" ever could hope to be anyway.  bahamut0013  words deeds 09:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Extremely notable. It was because of his affairs that Tiger Woods got beaten up by his wife and now he is heading for Sweden and leaving golf for an indefinite period. This article goes to the heart of his problems. It must be kept. Tovojolo (talk) 09:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per WP:BLP and WP:NOT. Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Very important aspect of his life that has affected his profession to the point that he no longer plays golf. Important to be documented. However the article needs a massive clean.Reaper7 (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The Tiger Woods page has an excellent take on this at Tiger Woods. 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 WP:undue 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 WP:BLP 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. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 21:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete for the same reasons given at Articles for deletion/List of Tiger Woods' lovers (I was the nominator on that one): "Unverifiable, BLP landmine, POV fork, unencyclopedic."  At some point in the future when everything has settled down this may become proper subject matter for an encyclopedia article, but not now.  --Glenfarclas (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This really gets into WP:BLP territory. Leave the rumors to other websites before this reaches 18 holes.  Mandsford (talk) 03:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I was particularly interested in learning on the list of affairs and I directly found it on the search box. Very useful for the average reader. Keep it and if possible someone make a three or four column collapsible table with whatever available picture there is under commons of each one of the alleged mistresses for readers to look at(I'd do it myself but I gotta work). Thanks. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you used the phrase "alleged mistresses", since it sums up the problem really well. For Tiger Woods, it's no big deal if he is alleged to have had more affairs than the ones he has admitted to.  On the other hand, each of these persons who gets identified on as an "alleged mistress" is someone who is, essentially, an ordinary person who is being tagged with an accusation for no other reason than someone is alleging it.  And you're proposing that their pictures be put on here.  Wow.  Mandsford (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand at Tiger Woods extramarital affairs. The article has been renamed to Tiger Woods extramarital affairs and should be developed to discuss the entire episode, rather than just listing the bed post notches.  This is clearly beyond a tabloid story at this point, and more significant than just a section in his bio.  This is a major incident in sport in general, sport media, the history of golf, and sport sponsorships.  This is not just some sex.  Consider that Bloomberg News, arguably the farthest thing from a tabloid in the country, is today fronting a story Golf Inc. Pays for Tiger’s Affairs With Lost Ads, which says "Tiger Woods’s indiscretions will cascade through Golf Inc., costing the PGA Tour, television networks such as CBS and merchandise vendors like Nike Inc. $220 million or more in lost revenue."  The extensive news coverage and the hundreds of millions of dollars in financial repercussions make this an obviously encyclopedic news story.  The distaste for tabloid news is well-intentioned, but this goes far, far, far beyond prurience at this point.  (Amazingly, the captcha to approve this post was the phrase "Whiteonly".)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.253.174.122 (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - blatant violation of WP:BLP. 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 WP:NOTNEWS would still apply), but this is just flat-out unacceptable. Robofish (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, isn't this article pretty much a WP:G4 of the previous one deleted at Articles for deletion/List of Tiger Woods' lovers? Robofish (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.