User talk:Milowent/Rachel Uchitel

Famous for what?

As an "encyclopedia", what has this woman done that is remotely notable apart from the obvious. One of the easiest ways to spot whether someone is important or not is the number of cites and references used.

Like the "lady who doth protest too much" it is quite obvious that in this case that are too many references. And that their presence is simply to self-justify a case for notability. But if you read the article, nothing makes her noteworthy. More than 3,000 people died in 9/11 is WP going to write a bio on every family? Of course not, she runs a club? And? She was one of Woods' women, so what? It sounds like she is among many!!

Sorry but this article smells like an act of self promotion. It needs to be trimmed and some of the details added to the Woods affair, that IMO is the only justice that it needs.

Its clearly not self-promotion because I added many of the cites to stave off deletion. Eventually it was deleted, and it current resides on my personal pages so I can attempt to improve it.--Milowent (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Well, now Uchitel's come forward as David Boreanaz' mistress. She's a serial homewrecker to the stars - how many of those are there? I can't think of any offhand. Seems like a bona fide celebrity. [1] Bellahellfire (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Start a good article on her, and I'll back you up. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge?

Now that there actually is an article on her, should we get rid of this, or add it to that article? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the niceties over which is preferred, but this could be deleted.--Milowent (talk) 05:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask an admin. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://content.usatoday.com/communities/entertainment/post/2010/05/rachel-uchitel-david-boreanaz-expressed-his-deep-love-for-me/1