Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy Lindquist (2nd nomination)

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Lindquist[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Subject lacks multiple reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Lacks significant independent coverage to meet the GNG and there's nothing to show she's notable for any of her athletic accomplishments.Sandals1 (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 07:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 13:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My BEFORE turned up no results. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 15:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the references are not much, I found 2 additional good reference to add from http://sport.one and steamit.com that verifies the content that was already there. I believe she is notable in her industry. Google image search will also return many additional pictures and references. Prior DELETE voters should revisit this. Peter303x (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC) 20240516080816[reply]
Delete Not convinced completely by Peter's sources: while one of them can be used for a short stub, the other, Steemit one, is a pure blog (actually a social media platform according to the site itself even) making it unreliable to use, and still making the subject fail WP:GNG for a lack of significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. Nothing to find in my searches except for how to pay for her trainings. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A blog and youtube pictures/videos are not enough to show WP notability. I don't see multiple cases of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The only thing that might count as a source is the sport.one article by someone who likes to make personal top 10 lists (Derek Jeter's top 10 girlfirends, 10 sexiest NBA cheerleaders, 10 most attractive female bodybuilders, top 10 hottest boxing ring girls, etc.), which is all this is. The author isn't a full time journalist nor is there any indication of editorial oversight by that website--and that's the best reference of the bunch. Papaursa (talk) 04:00, 23 March 2019 (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.