Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Tiger Woods' lovers: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:15, 10 December 2009

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. No. No no no no no. Unverifiable, BLP landmine, POV fork, unencyclopedic, I could go on. If you do object to the early closure, please feel free to contact me, but common sense is telling me that we're just wasting time discussing this. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tiger Woods' lovers

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

An unnecessary fork from Tiger Woods#Personal information, and virtually guaranteed to fill up with potentially libelous negative BLP. A borderline attack page, from the very title "lovers." I thought something like this had already been deleted, though I can't find it. Seems like a terrible idea (no offense to the author). Glenfarclas (talk) 08:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Will never have any sources that are considered reliable, aren't paid, or actually have anything serious to say. Lock this mess up and leave it to the US Weeklys and RadarOnlines of the world. Nate • (chatter) 08:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the topic of the unwanted public attention towards the private life of a living person is inherently tabloid material and could not conceivably meet the scope of a general interest encyclopaedia. Skomorokh 08:41, 9 December 2009 (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.

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 *'''Delete''' as the topic of the unwanted public attention towards the private life of a living person is inherently tabloid material and could not conceivably meet the scope of a general interest encyclopaedia. [[user:Skomorokh|<span style="background: black; color: gainsboro;"><font face="New York">&nbsp;Skomorokh&nbsp;</font></span>]] 08:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
-==Comment by page creator==
-WHAT?!?!? Okay, so I may have created a page that could be described as "unencyclopedic", however, does that mean that the page has to be deleted with such haste that I do not get to comment on its possible deletion? I received an invitation to comment on my talk page, and found that it was already gone. Why could the page not have been de-linked from the [[Tiger Woods]] page and then, as an 'orphan', few would have found it while this discussion ensued? As for "Unverifiable", I thought that I had justified every entry quite satisfacorily with referencing. As for why I did it; I'm not some nut; it just seemed obvious, given the current (yes, prurient) interest; and, the Tiger Woods article does not provide such a list. Is it "fair"? Some of you obviously think "no" (or "so" -- and, please see my double meaning in that last comment!)- [[User:Peter_Ellis|Peter Ellis]] - [[User_talk:Peter_Ellis|Talk]] 07:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)