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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeannine Dalton (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)

This article has some of the worst sourcing and style ever. It is basically saying "this person had daughters who did such and such, and we will make most of the article about it, and oh, she was once Miss North Carolina USA." That is the only actual claim to notability, and it is not enough to establish notability. A google search under both her maiden and married name did not show up any better sources. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a trivial and unconvincing career with everything trivial and unconvincing since she only participated in the pageant, and that's it. We never bestow inherited notability because of it. SwisterTwister talk 16:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -per points mentioned above regarding notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:07, 14 December 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.