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. Secret ^account 01:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaimee Grubbs

[edit]

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

The woman is known for only one thing: her affair with Tiger woods. All details about the affair belong in the Tiger Woods article. Victor Victoria (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) Being known for only one thing is not reason enough to warrant deletion (c.f. Monica Lewinsky, Donna Rice); 2) Tiger Woods' page is protected from edits, so this is currently the only way to get the news into Wikipedia, especially considering it is breaking news so we can't wait for an admin to insert it; 3) Specifically because it is breaking news, this should be left in place to see what develops; 4) She is best known for the affair but was also on a VH1 reality TV show. I think we should let this article stand a while and see how it develops before considering deletion. Noraft (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors have a week to improve this article to prove that it can stand on its own.
Rice and Lewinsky have made many media appearances to warrent their own articles. So far, Grubbs has not made a single media appearances.
Appearance on a reality TV show is not notable enough to have a biographical article
Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Breaking News is not a reason for a biographical article.

Victor Victoria (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing that this article does not meet the criteria for inclusion under WP:BIO, however, I quote from that article: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." All these criteria are met.

Editors have a week to improve this article to prove that it can stand on its own.

The presumption is not that it will be deleted now that it has been nominated. I think it stands on its own now, personally, and unless we can get consensus that this is not the case, it stays.

Rice and Lewinsky have made many media appearances to warrent their own articles. So far, Grubbs has not made a single media appearances.

Making "media appearances" does not increase one's notability. However, having press coverage does, whether one makes "media appearances" or not. Lewinski and Rice both became notable before either made their first media appearance. Further, what do you consider "a media appearance"? Grubbs obviously talked with reporters and furnished them with evidence. Is that not a media appearance? Does she need to be on TV or hold a press conference for one to consider that a "media appearance"?

Appearance on a reality TV show is not notable enough to have a biographical article

Right. But I submit that appearing on a reality TV show AND having an affair with Tiger Woods is.

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Breaking News is not a reason for a biographical article.

While breaking news is not a reason for an article in and of itself, breaking news related to a notable person should be included in an article about said person, so really this all boils down to notability. Noraft (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your claims. Grubbs has not been the subject of any third party sources, the affair is the subject (it's like taking a review of a book and saying that it's about the author). It's your job to prove she is notable, which so far you haven't IMO (and so far the consensus is that she is not notable). Both Lewinsky and Rice (ESPECIALLY Lewinksy) got tons of media coverage on them and their past, so far almost all of the "coverage" she has gotten has been in storys of Woods having an affair (with her being a second thought in them). Having an affair with someone notable has no affect on notability, it doesn't help her case (and having a small appearance on a non-notable reality show doesn't help her that much). As for your last point, that doesn't mean she deserves an article; hell, we don't know if this affair will even mean anything a year from now (there have been many cases of famous people having affairs, the majority of them ended up being forgotten after a few months and that could be the case here based on the fact that no sponsors have dropped him and Woods has not been getting much negative coverage). TJ Spyke 02:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lewinsky and Rice didn't get their tons of coverage the day after the story broke. If having an affair with someone had no effect on notability, then Lewinsky would never have been notable. In fact, not only does she have an article, the scandal itself has its own article. Did the photo of Donna Rice sitting on Gary Hart's lap mean anything a year from when it happened, or now? No, but she has a page all the same. Lastly, consensus is not a majority vote (Wikipedia:What_is_consensus%3F#Not_a_majority_vote), so I'd say there is not consensus to delete, with a number of people feeling the article should stay. Noraft (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While Woods has not yet lost any sponsors, his squeaky clean reputation has taken a serious hit because of Jaimee Grubbs. She's well into her sixteenth minute of fame, and there's no reason to believe that she'll be going away anytime soon. // Internet Esquire (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The story is about 6 hours old, what makes you think it won't go away? It's only been a minor story so far, I doubt it will be getting much attention after a few weeks. TJ Spyke 03:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your timeline. By my reckoning, this story is several days old, beginning with the Friday after Thanksgiving. Jaimee Grubbs may have just made her entrance onto the stage, but her allegations are the first credible allegations that have been acknowledged as credible by the mainstream media, so what makes you think the story is going away? People love to hear trash about celebrities, and Tiger's refusal to engage the media in any sort of meaningful way (although commendable) is clearly backfiring. In the weeks and months to come, we will see all sorts of trashy media coverage with timelines, dates, and blow-by-blow descriptions of alleged sexual encounters, and Jaimee Grubbs is going to be in the center ring of this media circus. // Internet Esquire (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This woman has nothing to do with the crash. The story involving this woman is less than a day old. Tiger refused to talk about the car crash, but he confessed to this affair only a few hours after she made the allegations (so how you get "refusal to talk to the media" out of a story that is not only about 12 hours old is confusing). You are assuming this will be talked about in the future. Think about all the hundreds and hundreds of athletes who have been confirmed to have affairs. Now think about how many of those people who they had affairs with are notable or got any real coverage other than for a few days max, the list is pretty small. This may or may not end up being on the small list of affairs that were notable, but as of right now she is not notable. TJ Spyke 04:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Victor Victoria and WP:BLP1E. Not notable enough yet. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 18:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Noraft. This woman was a D list minor celebrity; now she is the next Monica Lewinsky. // Internet Esquire (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Me. This woman was a D list minor celebrity; now she is the next Monica Lewinsky—Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.247.183.132 (talk)
Delete. WP:BLP1E. Kaldari (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Claiming to have had sex with some celebrity does not confer automatic notability. Fails WP:BIO. Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. 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. Edison (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 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 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep- 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 WP:BLP1E 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. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E applies. Woods story is her only noteworthy press coverage. Nakomaru (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong DELETE Absolutely not notable outside of Tiger. Coverage is not about this non-notable woman, it's about Woods's affair. Reywas92 ^Talk 00:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable as the news makes headlines around the globe. --Hapsala (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this event is noteworthy. However, it is (currently being argued) that this event is the only noteworthy news related to her. Under WP:BLP1E, therefore, she should not have her own bio article. It is sufficient that the event is mentioned in Tiger Woods' article. Nakomaru (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E—Chris!_c/t 00:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Widespread but insignificant and derivative press coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – 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 WP:BLP1E case. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because of the reality show thing in addition to the Tiger affair. That's one minor TV show plus one news event that made headlines around the world. Kraikk (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the definition of WP:BLP1E. 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. SnottyWong talk 02:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The MOST she warrants is a 1-sentence mention in Woods article. She claims to have had an affair with Tiger Woods, that isn't even close to making hr notable. TJ Spyke 02:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the length of this entire discussion prove that she is now a notable person? Yes, WP is an encyclopedia and not a tabloid. And this person has become famous for some very unsavory reasons. But famous nonetheless. KINGBOB

No it doesn't. Anytime something like this happens you have people thinking they deserve an article. Whenever a scandal affects someone famous, you have people creating articles about non-notable people involved in the situation and some people who think it should be kept in an AFD. TJ Spyke 03:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aside from the situation with Tiger Woods, she is not notable enough to warrant an article. --FlyingPenguins (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only notable for a single event, so any relevant info can go in Tiger Woods. One note though: I did a brief Google search and found a tidbit about her being a "reality show star and model". However, I could not find anything in reliable sources about that aspect of her life (apart from brief mentions of her role in Tool Academy), so she is not notable enough to warrant an article. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no independent notability. -Reconsider ! 04:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Per already mentioned criteria. Gage (talk) 05:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those arguing delete as per WP:BLP1E, I quote: "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." This event was covered by CNN on December 3, among many other reliable sources. I think the event, given her release of Tiger's voicemail, plus the text messages, plus Tiger's apology for "transgressions," all covered by major media, constitutes "well documented" as per WP:BLP1E. Noraft (talk) 06:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think having an alleged affair with a sports star is on the same level of importance as attempting to assassinate the President of the United States... well, all I can say is, 'no, it's not'. Robofish (talk) 12:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:ONEEVENT. Gage (talk) 07:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This woman will be well forgotten in a month. This is nowhere near as notable as the Clinton affair, not at the current time anyway ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 08:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NTEMP - "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability – particularly for living individuals known for one event." The appearance on a reality show wouldn't meet WP:ENT so doesn't tip this over the notability threshold. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete she's not notable for the reasons mentioned above. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Noraft. I'm getting tired of every news-related Wikipedia article having a deletion notice at the top. Binarybits (talk) 13:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect While a brief reality show appearance and an affair are not sufficient reason for a separate article, this is clearly something that needs to be covered in the Tiger Woods article. Since it is protected, an admin should do the including. At the very least leaving a redirect, since she's a possible search term, is a good idea. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's not notable, per above. Allowing her here would open up Wikipedia to tons of pages devoted to nobodies who know somebody. Sabiona (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is another non-notable bio.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. It can always be recreated if something else comes up later. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for now. Deleting articles when the story is developing doesn't seem very wise. Tiger Woods' career is jeopardized and now his most dedicated supporters try to clean Wikipedia from everything they don't like. The question of deletion should be put on hold until, at least, the next golf season. Fredrich H. 192.121.84.241 (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to an omnibus article TW's affair coverage. There's lots of articles covering the coverage in terms of what it means for our society, beyond the actual tabloid coverage. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E, as others have said. A brief appearance on a cable reality show doesn't contribute anything toward notability. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this is precisely the kind of subject BLP1E was designed for. The argument that deleting while coverage is ongoing is premature is beside the point, since we don't cover the news and we don't recognize pending notability. Chick Bowen 00:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and incorporate into separate article about the Woods affair, if it ever even gets made, per User:Peregrine Fisher. Mononomic (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Tiger Woods. She's not notable enough for her own article. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yet another WP:BLP1E. If someone's only in the news because someone famous reportedly had an affair with them, we shouldn't have an article on them. Robofish (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or alternatively merge into Tiger Woods. Insufficient notability for her own article. Aditya Ex Machina 15:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless she gets her own reality show which seems inevitable these days.--The lorax (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, she is not currently notable, she may become notable in the future at which point an article can be created. Mah favourite (talk) 04:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh lawd, this is so textbook WP:BLP1E it isn't even funny. No. Really. It is not funny. JBsupreme (talk) 04:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mattnad (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has per delete votes. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Saying that she is anywhere near as notable for one event as Lewinsky or Rice is stretching matters. Dismas|^(talk) 11:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Seraphimblade. very clear BLP1E case. We could consider a protected redirect to crash/affair allegations section of Tiger Woods article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A bunch of people are citing WP:BLP1E. 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. Binarybits (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- What do we call it? Alleged affairs of Tiger Woods? Are there any other articles similar that we can look at for guidance? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For me, Binarybits's post begs the question, why should deletion imply that there needs to be an article on the scandal? If this gets the type of coverage in reliable sources that WP:BLP demands, then add it the Woods article, where it can be placed in proper context by the rest of the coverage of Woods career. IMO, spinning out this type of article too early tends to lead to a grab-bag of gossipy quotes and undisciplined writing all thrown together. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Binarybits is interpreting BLP1E more narrowly than the policy intends. This is a more complex case than the ones the short paragraph at BLP1E cites. In this case, the subject isn't notable except in relation to an event, but the event itself isn't notable except in relation to a person. The closest analogue mentioned in the various policies on the issue is probably George Holliday (witness), in which there is a redirect to another biography but no biographical information on Holliday in the main article. That might be appropriate in this case, but I still think a redlink would be more appropriate given that it's not the affairs themselves that are notable but the way in which they came to be known and the response to them (another way to look at it--Grubbs, despite more media coverage of her personal life, has actually had far less of an impact on the relevant event than Holliday did). Chick Bowen 19:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The story is still moving pretty quickly, so we'll have a better idea of what to do soon. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - outside of the Tiger story, insufficent secondary sources. Hence fails WP:BIO. Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, WP:BLP1E Tovojolo (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets the notability requirements. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, Should be incorperated with Tiger woods article. Snickers696969 (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable for all the above reason. Reality TV star is too low a bar to be notable. And the affair seems to be far from notable (there are 7+ other ones). --MarsRover (talk) 01:17, 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.