Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrie Ann Mewha

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. No consensus on creating a redirect, but the page removal has enough support. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Ann Mewha

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

Being Miss Florida USA does not confer notability. The other incident, basically getting passing notice over a tweet, is also not notable. being a "licensed medical doctor" is no where near making someone notable, nor are any of her other positions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 00:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Redirect to Miss Florida USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect as above. My searches didn't come up with much, except a mention of a doctor named Carrie Mantha. Searchers note the last name change; my sense is the "Ann" middle name shouldn't be used when searching.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:BIO1E and lack of sources to meet GNG. IMO, a redirect is unnecessary as the name would not have been well known to have become a valid search term. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:43, 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.