Deletion of Lindsay McCormick

Comment: Yea, I nominated this page.  It's all self-promotion from her - she has no full-time position.  It seems all the keeps here, still confess it's weak.  She has no full-time position, all her online stuff is just appearances, and the FOX News author she just knows personally. CBS doesn't even DO draft coverage. One guy from CBS Sports Network sent a tweet he was working w/ her.  If we allow pages like this, we open up Wikipedia to all sorts of F-level public figures.  What about the fact that she created and maintains the page too - a clear violation of  and ?  The girl is just out of college and wants to show off - which isn't what Wikipedia is for.   — Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/96.238.52.140|96.238.52.140
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:AUTOBIO)

Comment: Whether she meets the  depends upon the degree the articles about her are mere public relations. (personally I find the ESPN hotties series  somewhat disgusting, but that's not a reason for deletion)  The correct Esquire link is http://www.esquire.com/the-side/qa/lindsay-mccormick-101910,& I reading through it, I class that as PR, despite the apparent respectableness of the publication.     But that does not compel us to have an article if the intent and purpose is promotional entirely, as I think this is.  The nature of the keep arguments above seem to prove it.  I rarely say that as a deletion argument except for what I consider the more outrageous cases
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)