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 redirect to Miss Wyoming USA. Consensus is clearly in favour of redirecting or deleting, so going with the first as arguments have been provided that the article title is a valid search term. This close might be revisited though when notability guidelines for this topic have been hammered out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Norman (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)

Her one claim to notability is being Miss Wyoming USA, but that is not enough on its own to make someone notable. Recent discussions have resulted in the deletion of several articles on state Miss USA winners. Her other claim to notability, being on a group of 8 students given authority to invest $1 for Wyoming, is not even anywhere near considering as a mark of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One of 8 students to invest $1? Wow, that's some investment! In all seriousness outside winning the state pageant there's just nothing else to show how she is notable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair it was not $1, I mistyped and meant to say $1 million. However even in Wyoming that is only a small slice of the state funds.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was just having a little fun with the obvious typo RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss Wyoming USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 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) 04:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The discussion that has started has largely confirmed me experience with the articles on pageant winners, finding them to be WP:PSEUDO biographies on individuals only notable for WP:BIO1E. Thus delete & redirect is an appropriate action in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No coverage in reliable sources and she has no historical significance. This is a 2005 pageant representative and really has no relevance in 2016, 11 years later. Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:ARTIST, WP:MODEL. There really is no good reason to keep this article. Or redirecting to Miss Wyoming USA is also a good idea. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Close comment - I originally closed as Redirect however someone disagreed so am relisting, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 02:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Miss Wyoming USA as it is a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned on the page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. Associated Press is a significant independent source, but the impact or importance of the subject investing money only to a college seems far too little. editorEهեইдအ😎 03:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and then Redirect because there are no signs she will actually be independently notable soon thus delete is needed. SwisterTwister talk 16:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sister Twister - this should be deleted first, then redirected, because there is no indication she will be independently notable at any future date. Just not there. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BIO1E; the subject is not notable. In case a redirect is chosen by the closer, suggest deleting before the redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 31 August 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.