Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tracey Curtis-Taylor

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Discounting all of the SPA and canvassed votes, there are legitimate concerns about WP:BLP1E but I can't see a strong enough agreement that it is severe enough to delete the article. Conversely, there are counter-arguments suggesting sufficient sources in the article to meet WP:GNG and there are no clear and blatantly obvious violations of BLP. The excessive sockpuppetry and canvassing on this AfD leads me to believe that relisting will cause a huge amount of further unnecessary discussion without any clear decision forming from it. I have no prejudice against renomination but may I suggest waiting a while before doing so, to let the heat die down on this topic a bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tracey Curtis-Taylor[edit]

Tracey Curtis-Taylor (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)

Please excuse the following wall of text.

Tracey Curtis-Taylor, a previously little-known and fairly inexperienced aviator, recently emulated Amy Johnson's famous 1930 solo flight from England to Australia. The press (for whatever reason) were misled into believing Curtis-Taylor's journey was a faithful recreation of the original, when in fact it was nothing of the sort. What most reports considered notable was that it was a "solo" flight, but it was not: she was accompanied in the aircraft by a highly experienced pilot, plus a back-up crew in another plane.

A faithful solo recreation by an inexperienced pilot might just be worthy of an article, this achievement almost certainly was not. However, faced with multiple reputable sources for the "solo" claim, and none to counter it, it would have been impossible to nominate this for deletion.

This week, after a concerted campaign by some contributors to a pilot's forum (one of whom worked on the flight), members of the Light Aircraft Association voted to rescind a trophy given to Curtis-Taylor for navigation. This was covered by the BBC, The Times, The Telegraph, Flyer magazine, and many other publications. It should be pointed out that Curtis-Taylor strenuously denies making false assertions, but has admitted that the flight was not "solo" as claimed.

So, in a nut-shell: Before the controversy it was probably a BLP1E, the event being her supposedly solo flight. Now it is a BLP1E because her only claim to notoriety is the rescission of her not-particularly-notable LAA trophy. I hope that we can ignore General Notabilty Guidelines and instead ask ourselves whether it's fair to have this BLP when the subject's real claim to fame is the controversy over a flight that, despite the coverage, wasn't particularly notable in the first place. --Hillbillyholiday talk 20:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Although many of the contributors to this discussion (and the article) are single-purpose accounts, as pilots they may have a better idea than the rest of us as to what constitutes genuine notability in the world of aviation. --Hillbillyholiday talk 12:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to additional comment - yes I have also noticed the large number of contributions from (apparently) SPAs and pilots on this discussion. While you may be right that people within an industry have a good idea of notability within their industry, bear in mind that WP is not a niche encyclopedia. This is not the "encyclopedia of aviation" - it is a general encyclopedia. What/who is considered notable inside an industry may not match what/who is considered notable in the larger world. I'm sure there are scientists, cooks, engineers, writers etc who are considered notable within their own field but may or may not be considered so outside that circle. It's the WP policies and measurements of notability which are the measure here, not the opinions of people inside one industry. In addition, those opinions are just that - personal opinions. WP relies on verifiable evidence, not on opinions, to make decisions around notability. MurielMary (talk) 10:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"WP policies and measurements of notability..." can always be twisted to suit one's opinion. The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not ... a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity.
"WP relies on verifiable evidence, not on opinions, to make decisions around notability." Sure, but what happens when the "evidence" turns out to be inevident, or just plain wrong?
Tracey Curtis Taylor days away from completing 13,000 mile solo flight ITV
British aviator is embarking on a 13,000-mile solo flight Guardian
Adventurer Tracey Curtis-Taylor in Darwin after solo flight from England ABC
Female pilot starts epic solo flight to copy Amy Johnson Telegraph
etc, etc....
I don't mean to keep on, but the "notability" here is from the stripping of the award, a rare occurence AFAICT, but not one justifying an article. I knew this one would probably end up kept, I just felt that, deservedly or not, our extremely lax criteria for biographies can leave their barely notable subjects permanently enshrined as a wrong'un. --Hillbillyholiday talk 23:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see your point and if this was the only flight expedition she'd ever done I might even agree with you. But it isn't. Yintan  21:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Were any of these expeditions notable though? Probably tens of thousands of pilots have accomplished similar feats, many of them actually "solo". --Hillbillyholiday talk 21:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, judging by the sources I think they were notable. And I doubt that "tens of thousands of pilots" have made long distance expeditions in historic biplanes, but I could be wrong of course. Yintan  22:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But the sources were misled! (Ok, maybe not tens of thousands of pilots, but many, many pilots have achieved more than TCT without 'earning' an article.) --Hillbillyholiday talk 22:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no sensible logic in that argument, Hillbilly. If there are other pilots who have achieved more than TCT, anyone can go ahead and write an article on them. That there are other "more worthy" subjects of articles doesn't have any influence or impact on the worthiness/notability of any other subject. MurielMary (talk) 05:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, Muriel. There are of course plenty of pilots more worthy of an article, but they haven't had the press coverage that TCT and her sponsors have managed to generate (and most of that is based on a false premise). What may make her notable is the rather minor controversy, and that isn't enough to hang an article on. --Hillbillyholiday talk 12:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Hillybilly. While putting together such a trip might have been a worthy event, even perhaps if they were carried out as openly 'PR/TV documentary' shows, the actual journeys don't seem to stack-up when compared to say, Polly Vacher or in another field, Ellen MacArthur. Although she was given the award for the SA/UK trip, the media reports (which were not corrected) were still representing solo flight for UK/Australia. Given that Curtis-Taylor is now known more for not doing the flights solo as reported by the media and claimed by her [1], Post- Canada, possibly either the whole entry should be deleted or indeed, the bias might be for the deception.Veritasaviator (talk) 05:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC) — Veritasaviator (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
It gets more curious. Having been steered there by the Pprune page, it appears the Honourable Company of Air Pilots are to award her their 'Master's Medal'. https://www.airpilots.org/about-the-company/trophies-and-awards/award-winners/the-masters-medal/ In the award text, it quotes ' Tracey's team consisting her co-pilot and engineer, Ewald Gritsch, flying with her in the Stearman biplane,'. This is completely the opposite of Ewald Gritsch's quote on the birdinabiplane site where he states 'Yes, Tracey Curtis Taylor was the sole pilot on all her expedition flights' and 'I did NOT act as a pilot nor as a flight instructor on these expedition flights.' (his caps) http://www.stearman.at/Statement_SR.html I have reached the point where I am finding it hard to keep up with these contradictions.Veritasaviator (talk) 06:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC) — Veritasaviator (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep I created this article because Curtis-Taylor was in the news (in reliable sources) over a period of time and her story was interesting to me. I wanted to read an article about her, but as there wasn't one, I started one. According to the GNG this is exactly the type of subject WP biography articles represent - people in the news, in independent and reliable sources, over a period of time. I can't see any valid reason to, as Hillbilly requests, "ignore the GNG" because she has been embroiled in controversy. As Veritasaviator points out, the controversy is quite complex with allegations and evidence on both sides, and it's likely she will be in the news for a while because of it - which again means that she as a subject meets the GNG. MurielMary (talk) 07:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MurielMary Well, it's certainly become an interesting subject! Leaning towards your argument, with the HCAP award now stating she did have a co-pilot on board (the opposite of both Curtis-Taylor and Gritsch's recent statements) would you consider the controversy is beginning to overtake the activity and maybe that should be part of the introduction to the page ? Veritasaviator (talk) 07:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Veritasaviator, let's move questions regarding the article's emphasis to its talk page. This AfD page is intended to discuss whether the article should remain in WP or be deleted. Regards Guffydrawers (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please familiarise yourself with the GNG of WP (the General Notability Guidelines for article subjects). Whether Curtis-Taylor's flights were solo or not is irrelevant here. The question is whether she is the subject of ongoing media coverage in independent reliable sources over a period of time. For comparison, someone like Kim Kardashian has arguably achieved nothing in her life but has a very busy, highly read and popular article on WP. Achievement is different to notability. MurielMary (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MurielMary I have to say that point of view does not dovetail with your reasons for revisions to remove reference to her accidents which have appeared in the press on the basis they are "non-notable" (and BTW from my point of view as a professional of many years I consider them both significant and relevant, but I digress) Beck daross (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC) — Beck daross (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Beck daross (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • Keep appears to be of note and covered by reliable sources per MurielMary and I dont like it is not a good reason to delete. Other stuff can be dealt with on the talk page with an eye on WP:WEIGHT MilborneOne (talk) 08:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 08:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being the victim of an edit war is not a reason to delete it just means a difference of opinion which can be sorted out on the talk page, allegedly being exposed as a fraud also is not relevant to this discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 09:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the contrary actually - the numerous edits are required to ensure objectivity and neutrality are maintained. There is a difference between censoring (telling one side of a story) and being neutral (telling all sides, supported by reliable evidence). The article, and WP, maintain neutrality. MurielMary (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comprehensive and well substantiated information casts great doubt upon the achievements of Tracey Curtis-Taylor as publicized. She has failed to address the discrepancies raised, nor assure that public information is truthful. Information she has presented, and events in which she has been involved, show her to be a mediocre pilot, and not worthy of extra notoriety. If Ms. Curtis Taylor deserves a page here for pilot achievements, a few hundred thousand other pilots do too... Perhaps she warrants a page here for scandal and deception, but not aviation achievement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.98.206 (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC) — 208.80.98.206 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 208.80.98.206 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • Comment - WP has a policy on the treatment of living people and editors here need to abide by this policy. See WP:Living people for more detail, but note that making and repeating defamatory claims, such as in the IP editors' comment above, and making personal attacks, such as on the articles' talk page, are not acceptable. WP is not the place to pursue a campaign maligning a living person. It is a place to record events objectively. A number of anonymous editors here seem to think the former is the case. It isn't. MurielMary (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I decided to see how the entry looked at the end of yesterday before making a decision. In my view, keeping this entry fails. Wikipedia states that an encyclopedia should be a reference work holding a comprehensive summary of information from either all branches of knowledge (on a subject) or a particular branch of knowledge. Further, such information should be neutral and objective in tone. If non-expert editors will not accept genuine balanced information (as opposed to malicious) from expert editors in the field of the subject, the page cannot be relevant or informative.Veritasaviator (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC) — Veritasaviator (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Veritasaviator (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Forgive me being blunt, but are you proposing deletion of the article due to disagreement with other editors on its content? regards Guffydrawers (talk) 07:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No Guffydrawers, I am proposing deletion for the reasons I have stated above. The entry is neither neutral or objective and attempts to make it so are removed. I suggest you read the Polly Vacher entry to see a good example of the genre.Veritasaviator (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Offtopic comment ..... but Polly Vacher is an interesting article to raise here as a "good example" - it has only two references, one which is a dead link and one which is a book written by the subject. Someone here was complaining that the "Q and A with TCT" source in Pilot magazine was not a reliable enough/independent source, but over on Vacher, the entire article can be based on a book written by the subject? I don't see how Vacher's article can be held up as a model article at all. MurielMary (talk) 08:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I venture that Guffydrawers' comment above absolutely hits the nail on the head of the "problems" being raised with this article. The "problem" that many editors here have is that the article does not attack Curtis-Taylor, does not malign her, and does not take a negative view of her career. And as so many editors have attempted (and failed) to turn this article into part of the online campaign against TCT, they have instead hit on this new idea of getting the article deleted completely. As has been mentioned several times to no avail, WP is not a place to malign living people or run a campaign against them. MurielMary (talk) 08:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think he means the subject as an example not the entry.Veritasaviator (talk) 09:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are there two people behind the account "Veritasaviator"? Because that user suggested Vacher was a good example, then the same username states "I think he means...." - with regard to his/her own comment? MurielMary (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No MurielMary, I am in a crew room using a cellphone with predictive text.Veritasaviator (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a notable and high-profile personality whatever the truth about her achievements. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As this will basically be a biography that ends up being substantially negative (possibly though no fault of the subject) for one event (that didnt really happen). Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this discussion is whether she is notable enough for a stand-alone article, the content and due weight or bias in the article is a subject for the talk page which is not relevant to this discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 09:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. Content, due weight, and bias are all valid issues for an AFD. Prior to the medal stripping, this was basically a hagiography, given the borderline notability at best which was pushed over by the substantial coverage of the 'solo' flight, and the fact that the 'solo' flight turns out to be completely made up, it is highly unlikely the article will stay in the relatively positive state it is now. It either needs to be TNT'd to be re-written with due weight given to how reliable sources are covering the subject (or my preference) deleted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only in death, here is a quote from the policy on AfDs which supports MilborneOne's comment:
"The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either." .... seems to suggest that stating an article is biased is not actually grounds for deletion. The question is whether the subject meets the requirements of the GNG, not how to treat the subject in the article. MurielMary (talk) 09:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - keep. In that video her definite and unqualified use of the term solo would seem to flatly contradict statements both she and Ewald Gritsch have since made regarding the status of these flights. As she claims to have involved the police in this matter I think this is now a bona fide aviation controversy and it is absolutely right that the article remains as a reference to events that are of great interest to both the general aviation community and the wider public. Beck daross (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC) — Beck daross (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Beck daross (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • Keep, enough coverage comes up in Google News and a quick look though the news articles shows she has a lot of coverage. Karl Twist (talk) 08:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MurielMary (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • Weak delete and redirect for now. I think this article may now fall into WP:BLP1E. Against that is the continuing press coverage of the controversy and the (arguable) point about her exploits being independently notable, outside of the busted claim about flying solo. Are they? That's what this debate should centre around. An article which mainly discusses the controversy around her claims and the rescinded award isn't viable, but is that all that can be sourced? If it is, it should maybe redirect to and be a short mention in Amy Johnson. Remember that if we went down this road there would be no prejudice against recreating the article if someone was to write a book or make a movie in the future, or if the subject does something else more notable. I incidentally also think, ethically, it might be kinder to the subject to delete and redirect for now. Pragmatically, if this article is kept it will continue to generate work for those of us committed to maintaining BLP standards. Are those !voting keep willing to assist in this? I suspect the answer is "no". --John (talk) 01:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your last question there John, I for one have already been assisting in keeping this article in line with BLP standards, as can be seen from the article revision log, and I see no reason to stop doing that should the result of the AfD be to keep it. There have also been other editors such as Guffydrawers who have stepped in to maintain the article as well. If the article is kept, then I recommend that the protection against IP editing is kept as well, as the disruptive/vandalism aspect largely comes from those edits. MurielMary (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nice thought. In reality we can't keep articles protected long-term. --John (talk) 10:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually we can; the issue isn't that we can't, it's that we shouldn't without an extremely good reason (generally pages like Jesus and The Holocaust where it's reasonable to assume that disruption will never abate, and where the volume of IP edits would be too high to make pending changes feasible) We also have at least one BLP which has been permanently locked to all non-admins. Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages that are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as biographies of living persons, neutral point of view)., if you want policy chapter-and-verse. (Disclaimer: per the request here I've put this page under temporary PC protection for the duration of this AFD. As a page with a relatively low volume of IP edits but where every edit needs to be monitored for potential libel or undue weight issues, this article is pretty much the perfect use-case for PC.) ‑ Iridescent 10:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right to correct me, there are some articles that this applies to but it is not ideal according to our "anyone can edit" principle. I agree that pending changes is a good solution for this article. --John (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep This is a tricky one. I read the article, the above and most of the talk page and am in two minds still. Most of the good sources mention the flight and then the resulting controversy. It does lead into WP:BIO1E territory. Many other sources that mention other aspects are weak, but there are probably enough in between to justify keeping it. Maybe a merge would be the best solution, although I can't think of a suitable target. AIRcorn (talk) 06:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is Curtis –Taylor a notable woman who is a pilot, is she a notable pilot who is a woman or has she any other form of notability? I don’t think she passes the first premise as she is not known outside of the subject matter. An example would be Carol Voderman, already a celebrity, who has taken up flying as a hobby and intends to use the skill for various charity projects and as ambassador to the RAF Air Cadets.
The second premise would include a rather long list. Amy Johnson and Amelia Earhardt we all know about but what about contemporaries of Curtis-Taylor? Polly Vacher: A number of solo flights against time in potentially hazardous regions, Martha McSally, Kim Cambell, Jeanni Leavitt, Sara Joiner, Helen Seymour, Julie Gibson, Kirsty Moore, Juliette Fleming. All of those are military fighter pilots. Kate McWilliams and about 50 others are female airline captains. There are at least 10 female pilots who are astronauts and another 10 who are international winners of aerobatics competitions.
So how does Curtis-Taylor compare against their achievements? Well, if she had flown the two trips she made solo then maybe it would be worth looking at. But even solo, while flying a reproduction aircraft in the highest form of maintenance with modern aviation electronics in four-hour stints with the back-up of another aircraft, logistics etc, might be interesting, it's not particularly hazardous or challenging. There are those who might comment that every weekend hundreds of light aircraft owners fly solo (in aircraft, a number of which are 40-50 years old) across the Channel to destinations in France, Belgium and The Netherlands without any form of preparation or support other than checking the weather, route information and relying on their skills. Of course, we now know Curtis-Taylor did not fly solo. Where’s the notability as a woman pilot then? Maybe it’s the ‘Outreach’ program. Outreaching what though? Telling African kid’s they can become pilots? Why not doctor’s or engineer’s? Telling Indian women they can better themselves as a pilot? Many thanks but they have a few dozen fighter and military pilot's already not to mention dozens of commercial ones. Bringing science and technology. What technology is that?
So finally, other notability? For more than two years, Curtis-Taylor, her sponsors and PR agents convinced the media, a few aviation bodies, a university and the Royal Navy that she flew solo. Now, having been found out and by her own admission, she admits she didn’t fly solo. Maybe that's the notable bit?178.255.43.148 (talk) 07:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC) — 178.255.43.148 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 178.255.43.148 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • Keep. Not at all a one-event person. Abundant significant independent coverage for several expeditionary flights (the first in 2013) and multiple awards, etc. Not merely notable for the flight that was questioned and/or award that was rescinded. Softlavender (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC); edited 04:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Softlavender there were only two flights and both were claimed as 'solo'. Unfortunately, they both received different awards for being solo - one of which has been recinded. The significant independent coverage is also all about them being solo. However, I'm not at all suggesting that is a reason for removing.5.133.8.124 (talk) 11:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC) — 5.133.8.124 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Significant coverage over time meets GNG. Coverage on multiple events plus the controversy means this is not BLP1E. JbhTalk 14:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources over several years clearly meets WP:GNG. The recent controversy is relevant to the contents of the article but not to the question of its existence. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: I have seen obvious evidence of sockpuppetry on this AfD. For privacy reasons, I have submitted my evidence via email to ArbCom. Please do not close this AfD before the results come back. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Softlavender, the investigation is ongoing, so let me just make a brief announcement, Comey-style: the tools we have may well be of limited use, but looking over these IP votes, I see that many of them make no substantial argument solidly rooted in policy, and I have no doubt that the closing admin will be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources over a period of years. Clearly meets the requirements of GNG. None of this implies that the article doesn't need improvement; given the recent sockpuppetry, we need to keep a sharp eye to make sure the article conforms to WP:NPOV. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; all the coverage is news about her latest activities; by definition, news about her current activities is a primary source (go take a historiography class if you can't understand this), and primary sources don't count toward notability. We need coverage depending on those news sources, coverage that takes primary sources and synthesizes them into a narrative; that's what this article is doing at the moment. If you want to write something based on news coverage, go find a publisher and get it put into print or into a solid online publication; don't pretend that your new secondary source is a tertiary source. Nyttend (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage, all of it significant, dates back more than three years. Whoever has been adding the citations did a lousy job with them because hardly any of them show the date of publication. We don't exclude independent press coverage from WP:N or WP:NBIO, and independent press coverage is not considered WP:PRIMARY when it comes to a BLP (in fact that's generally all we ever have on a BLP); WP:PRIMARY would be self-written articles, diaries, memoirs, legal documents, mere small-time local reportage (as opposed to regional, national, or international coverage), etc. She gets more than 40,000 Google hits -- that alone would indicate to me that she is sufficently notable to pass WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. -- Softlavender (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Softlavender, she actually gets 109 Google hits; you need to navigate to the last page of results to get the correct number of hits on Google. ‑ Iridescent 19:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not the correct number of Google hits at all. That's only the number that Google decides to actually let you view if you are only viewing 10 results per page. If view 100 results per page, it's easy to see that on the web alone she gets 38,500 hits; on news she gets over 2,000 results; on Highbeam 50 results, etc. Google drastically truncated the results it actually lets anyone view, even when viewing 100 results per page, in 2010. Since then, one can never view even close to all the results anymore, unless you do one small time-range search at a time, or add numerous additional keywords to narrow down the field, and so on. Significant coverage on Curtis-Taylor goes back to at least Septemer 2013 [2], [3] and ballooned from there. Softlavender (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Hillbillyholiday, in your nomination rationale you stated that "Curtis-Taylor ... recently emulated Amy Johnson's famous 1930 solo flight from England to Australia." That flight wasn't "recently", it was in 2013. Her most recent expedition (2015–2016) was from South Africa to England. Softlavender (talk) 04:32, 3 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tracey_Curtis-Taylor&oldid=1090675363"