Deletion of Katherine Webb

Comment: for sailing across the verifiability and notability (per ) thresholds. Being named Miss Alabama USA is a "well-known and significant award or honor" and all the recent coverage adds only to her fame, not her already-established notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PEOPLE)

Comment: between her pageant title and the recent controversy, she satisfies 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Re Tokyogirl's question, we already have an article for Miss Alabama USA, which lists all the winners; indeed, Ms. Webb's bodacious photo is at the top of that article.. My recollection is also that a lot of state winners have been kept on the basis that winning a state pageant (and the coverage attendant thereto) conveys notability.  While I appreciate where Drmies is coming from, I also think this case is not so easily dismissed; Webb has now received substantial coverage for two different events so she can't be categorized as a  case.  My own inclination would be to let this article hang around for 6 months or so and then come back and see if she has disappeared from public view or not.   But I certainly understand the reasoning of the delete !votes
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: although, on the one hand, this discussion can be viewed as simply another display of debating points between m:Deletionism|deletionists (m:Deletionism|Rationale for deletion) and m:Inclusionism|inclusionists (m:Inclusionism|Arguments against deletion), on the other hand, it presents another opportunity to establish or enhance standards for inclusion of certain groups or classes of individuals acceptable as subjects of biographical entries.  While it would have been somewhat more favorable for inclusion arguments had this Katherine Webb article been created before January 8, 2013, and not in response to the publicity cresting on that date, the fact that it was created because of the publicity, may be ultimately immaterial (the previously mentioned Jill Kelley article, created in response to the publicity regarding her role/involvement in the Petraeus scandal, was quickly Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Kelley|nominated for deletion, deleted, immediately recreated and, following Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 21|another discussion, retained).  It's not even specifically a case of ther Stuff Exists, although such consideration does play a major role.  Furthermore, even though we have the :Category:Footballers' wives and girlfriends, containing, as of this writing, 116 names, one presumes these women have at least as much fame as Katherine Webb, and most of them, it may be argued, have little, if any notability.  It may almost seem counterintuitive that she is being nominated for deletion because she attracted too much attention and publicity, while other "wives and girlfriends" are not "notable" enough to even rate a deletion discussion.  Ultimately, if Wikipedia is already inclusive to such a degree as to contain an article on every cricket player, baseball player, hockey player, tennis player, baseball player, footballer and Olympic athlete who ever played for any major team or participated in any Olympic Games, and then there are wrestlers, actors, local politicians, etc, to the degree that winners of major statewide beauty pageants, who subsequently represent their respective states in nationally televised annual events, would seem to have at least as much claim to be subjects of articles.  While this discussion is about an American pageant winner, any winners of equivalent beauty contests held in other countries or, for the purposes of English Wikipedia, at least those in the English-speaking world, would, needless to say, have equivalent standards for inclusion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Orphan (WP:O)