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. MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Channing Pierce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Being Miss Michigan USA is essentially 1 event. Most of the articles about her role there only mention her in passing, a few are clearly about other people for example. Beyond that, her modeling is not enough to make her notable. Nor is the extremely local paper that made mention of her extremely minor role in Oz: The Great and Powerful. None of this is enough to make her notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a non-notable pageant winner. Sources are insufficient to meet GNG and a state-level win is insufficient for ANYBIO1. All coverage that I see is trivial. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss Michigan USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The discussion on pageant winners' notability is taking place here: RFC on creation of consensus standard, with participants variously advocating that (1) state level winners are not presumed notable, (2) state-level winners are not presumed non-notable; or (3) a special guideline is unnecessary, and that GNG should be used. There's an overlap between the these three positions. There aren't really voices for "state-level winners are always presumed notable" so I don't think the outcome of the discussion, if any, would have an impact on this AfD, which is trying to establish whether the subject meets GNG. Thus it may not make sense to suspend the AfD process for this nomination.

Further, a deletion is preferred as a BLP for a non-notable person is potential invasion of privacy and may be subject to vandalism. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete My sweeps didn't turn up much.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2016 (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.