Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy Lindquist

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 keep. no consensus for deletion after three weeks of discussion JForget 00:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Lindquist

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

Seem to fail WP:ATHLETE. I could be wrong, but most competitions she took part in seem local or similarly non-notable (none have an article here; compare with Cathy Priest for instance). All references are primary: her own website and her ModelMayem page. Pcap ping 19:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 19:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Are there any direct references to be found for the "other credits" section? If so, that could increase the article's notability... GorillaWarfare ^talk 02:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most fitness models appear in magazines. It's no different than academics publishing papers or books. The list is copied from her MM entry (like I said above). If you think she is notable as a model, the relevant guideline is WP:ENTERTAINER, which I don't think is met, but that guideline is rather subjective. Pcap ping 02:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. She may pass WP:ATH (competed at the fully professional level of a sport), but the article obviously needs better sourcing. Wine Guy~Talk 02:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @151 · 02:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep: She looks like she is probably notable, however, the sources of the page are just personal sites or profile pages. I am not an expert in body building or strong man/woman competitions, but it seems like she is professional. Perhaps this shows how silly the WP:athlete requirement is. For some sports we hold people to the requirement of competing in the Olympics, but for others a national professional league will due. Perhaps the WP:athlete needs to change, but as it is written, I think this person fits the description.MATThematical (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the intent of the Olympic part of the guideline is to expressly include all Olympians, particularly those for whom there is no notable "professional level" of their sport; not to exclude those who have not been in the Olympics. Wine Guy~Talk 02:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how someone participating only in obscure competitions qualifies as notable even when one of those competitions labels itself as "professional". Pcap ping 21:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably a good question to bring up at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). I would agree that some "fully professional" sporting endeavors may be of questionable notability (i.e. is the sport ever written about in RS independent of the sport itself?). But the way the guideline reads now anyone who has competed at the fully professional level of a sport is notable, but there is no suggestion that one should consider the notability of the sport itself. Wine Guy~Talk 22:38, 2 March 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.