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 00:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Piper Stoeckel[edit]

Piper Stoeckel (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)

Stoeckel does not pass the general notability guidelines nor does she pass the notability guidleines for biographies. Miss Arizona is not a significant enough award to show notability. The sources in the article consist of 1-a hype article from Tucson where she lived when she was made Miss Arizona, 2-an article from here hometown newspaper, this newspaper had previously published an article on her getting a scholarship at high school graduation, and would publish an announcement of her engagement. I question this as a reliable source, but clearly not usable towards notability when we have one event concerns, 3-an interview by the U of Arizona Her Campus affiliate. Not a reliable source coverage. 4-an article on Stoeckel from the University of Arizona newspaper. Campus newspaper coverage of university students is not enough to show notability. I did find an additional photo caption in the same Tucson paper about her, but nothing substaantial there. The fact that her being Miss Arizona was not even enough to get her coverage in the Phoenix based newspapers shows that it is not even clearly a notable title within Arizona, and in general awards need to be at least national level to be considered notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable enough. Additionally, any additional information can easily be added to her box entitled "Notes," on the Miss Arizona Wikipedia page.TAG (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We have multiple, sourced events from being Miss Tucson Valley (and returning a year later to MC the contest for her successor), Miss Arizona and coverage of over a week of activities in the Miss America pageant. Plenty of sources available for all of the events. Trackinfo (talk) 08:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a state-level pageant win is an insufficient claim to notability. Also: "Interviewed by the Daily Mail, Stoeckel revealed how she uses duct tape for extra lift and support"? Wikipedia is not a tabloid to include such trivia, and there's not much there otherwise. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The superficial coverage of her beauty secrets is what you would expect as content for a beauty pageant contestant. The point of including that source shows International coverage of her from the domestic USA event. The intent is to show all of these contestants achieve WP:GNG for the mass of coverage during the week Miss America pageant process. Trackinfo (talk) 07:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail is a tabloid; Wikipedia generally does not cite to tabloids for notability purposes. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In addition the Daily Mail article is not about Stoeckel, and it does not provide indepth coverage of her. It provides a passing one line mention in an article about the general actions of beauty contestants. It is not indepth coverage that adds towards GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:19, 1 January 2017 (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.