Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meg McGuffin

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 Alabama. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meg McGuffin[edit]

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

McGuffin is only notable for being Miss Alabama. There is nothing to suggest that this receives wide enough coverage to merit an encyclopedia article. The article is based on extremely local soruces, sources mentioning her winning Miss Auburn University, and even has a picture of an egg mcmuffin because evidently this was her nickname when she was a child. Nothing to suggest more than one event notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Alabama as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there as the 2015 winner. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 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) 05:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient coverage meeting the WP:GNG. She's a smart cookie to boot.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect as she has not obtained enough to suggest she has actual substance for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:17, 21 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.