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, but not to be kept in present form—The consensus is that the article needs serious changes in tone and content. The article will be so-tagged. I believe common practice is that if the issues are not addressed within a reasonable time (probably a month or so), then it can be brought back here for re-evaluation taking into account lack of change in the article since last AFD. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Bossons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Nominated purely for WP:COI issues within the article as one editor has bought up on the Moorcroft, also these entries unsourced and notability of these entries are questionable, plus these are nothing but a vanity page as these consists of nothing but a list of trivial information, plus where is the promised cleanup, it dosen't exist

On a note, I want to nominate Moorcroft, but this needs vast cleanup. Charley Uchea (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No attempt to address the issues for which the article has been tagged, despite plenty of time. I also sense that the article was written by people who were uncertain of the subject's notability. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 17:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I dont see notability here. But I'm happy to be proven wrong... Marcus22 (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think the subject is notable enough, but the article does need some work re referencing and general tone. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I am sorry to say, never heard of her, even whether its in or out of S-o-T? Until this article, I have never heard of her. Not to mention about the notability issues as there are 656 ghits about her and all of this are official sites, mirror sites of wikipedia, online auctions and everything that has to do with Moorcraft and nothing else. Not to mention these tag has sat there since June, 6 months passed has passed since then and still nothing, why not delete. Willirennen 17:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has recieved significant coverage: [1]. Epbr123 (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, if the article was to be kept, then whatever is tagged on the page should be dealt with ASAP as within a month, otherwise a deletion would be best to deal with this issues.Willirennen (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2007 (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.