Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Bossons (2nd nomination)

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 Keep. Wikipedia is not just reserved for Paris Hilton, as one editor suggests. Merging is a possibility, but should be discussed on the article talk page in the normal way. Tyrenius (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emma Bossons

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

procedural nomination—version brought to AFD: There was a mandate on this article to clean-up after the last AFD. However, a month has passed and an editor felt it was time to PROD the article because it had not been cleaned up; here is what the PROD nominator had to say, "Several reasons for deletion: Since the "Consensus to clean-up" up was given, now a month has passed and no edit since then other than that of a Bot, as a result, this article is now eligible for deletion". Personally, I don't think renominating for deletion is a constructive way to go ... but here we are again. For reference, the diff between the AFD closure and the PROD nomination, to demonstrate no substantive progress on the article. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I've now removed the unsourced info. She has recieved significant media coverage, so is notable. Epbr123 (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete My reason is still notability issues, the huge majority of these ghits are promotional sites, ebay, and wiki mirror sites. If she is an international success, then have you heard of her before because as I stated from my previous nom, I have still never heard of her even if I am from the same area, nor is she is mentioned in schools and colleges as well as in local papers. But the main reason is this line in the article, It is unclear whether this was a publicity stunt, there are plenty of workers who are solely responsible of the success of the companies and they never get an article here, if they do, they get deleted ASAP. Personally, I think people should think that if they have heard of the person before they decide if the subject is notable or not, rather than let this article decide if that person is. Thats is the problem of this site, if it has an article herre, then people are going to assume that this person is notable. Willirennen (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment posted on 13 Jan 08: Reading Robertlondon's reasoning, considering Bosson is considered as specialist notable, I am withdrawing my nomination, I did not reply until not because I hoped the outcome would come out as a keep. Willirennen (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm sorry, but the notion of "I have not heard of her; therefore, she should not have an article" is completely at variance with both consensus and policy. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: Can I see the any reliable source that does not sell her products other than that sole BBC newspiece.
      • Further Comment: A merge to her employer would be better suited to this nominated article considering she has no other notability other than that employer she works for, IMO, I don't think she has other notability other than working at Moorcroft. Willirennen (talk) 13:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Moorcroft. At most, it's a WP:BLP1E. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with a merge. There's enough sources for her to be notable in her own right, and I don't believe in merging articles just for the sake of it. Much of the current info would have to be lost if merged into Moorcroft. Epbr123 (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    • But is she notable on her own if it wasn't for the company, I don't think so. Plus with you saying she is notable enough to have her own article, are you trying to say that every reality TV contestants should have their own article, even though they get more news coverage than she does; are you trying to say that every "employee of the year" who have contributed heavily to the company enough to have a news coverage should get their own article here, even many of these do get successfully AFD'd. Usually people who are notable for more than just being an employee are usually entitled to have an article, as for her she only received a small piece of news article. I would like you to refer to WP:BIO, I can't see that she would be able to pass this. Also WP:NOT#NEWS, like reality TV contestants,she is only notable for just this piece of news article. Willirennen (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Should all baseball players be merged with their teams? Should all musicians be merged with their record companies? Epbr123 (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
        • They are notable in their own right, and is she, not at all, she is simply just another employee who is notable for one or two minor news article. Willirennen (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep or at least Merge to the Company, if no better sources found. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I'm sure the BBC article was part of the company's PR, and possibly only picked up by the BBC as a skateboarding duck type story, but it does make her notable, not because of the coverage, but because of the insurance sum.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• seppedy delete, im from stoke and who the heck is she, [redacted per BLP] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.139.5 (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete shouldn't these articles be reserved for famous pooeles like paris hilton and this one isn't.Charley Uchea (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I originally created the Emma Bossons page because it appeared obvious to me that she was a significant figure not only at Moorcroft but in modern day British pottery. I have an interest in antique pottery and certainly did not create it as a "promotional" piece. Stoke on Trent (known as “the Potteries”) in the UK has a great history and includes prestigious names such as Royal Doulton and Wedgwood. Important parts of this history are the female designers which have innovated and led to growth of the pottery industry. Notable ones include Charlotte Rheade, Clarice Cliff and Susie Cooper who were all ceramic artists and are included on the Wikipedia page of “British Potters”. In my original page (which was the first one I ever created and perhaps did sound a bit "evangelical"), I tried to describe how she changed the style of relatively traditional Moorcroft designs into something which could now be identified as her own. I had hoped to include photos of one of her initial pieces at Moorcroft using their traditional style and a later one using the same elements but in her distinctive style. Unfortunately I was unable to locate free images for this. Her influence can now be seen throughout the Moorcroft range with the other designers adopting many of her ideas. This is all the more remarkable for the fact that she was a junior designer within a team of 6 or 7. Bossons’ style innovations have helped her employer Moorcroft to increase sales dramatically. This is especially notable given the ongoing struggle of so many potteries to survive in the Stoke on Trent area. Many have closed down and/or transferred work to the Far East. Her designs were responsible for a huge amount of sales and have helped Moorcroft to buck the trend and expand rather than diminish. Current British pottery is not very sexy and is not widely reported on the internet. Other than Turner Prize winner Grayson Perry (who produces individual work), I think it would be difficult to find information about any significant figures working in British pottery today who have been responsible for sales as big as hers. The fact that the BBC and Guardian have reported on her is testament to the fact she is important. There are no articles about the Head Designer Rachel Bishop or any of the other Moorcroft designers. Sweeping statement here... I would also suggest that buying £500 ($1000) Moorcroft vases with flowers on (for that is what she produces) tends to be the preserve of, dare I say, ladies of a certain age and people buying wedding presents rather than people who would use the word "vaneetyee" or are in touch with the goings on of Paris Hilton. Their interests are less likely to be included in internet newsrooms. Her poor show on a google search does not make her less important, rather it illustrates how the internet is overly weighted towards youth and dynamism. Whilst Bossons is young, she works in a field which could be considered as sober and unexciting. She should not be merged with the Moorcroft page. Her innovative designs and subsequent effect on sales are too significant for that. I also disagree that she would not be "notable on her own if it wasn't for the company". She started out at Wedgwood before moving to Moorcroft. Once there she produced designs which fitted a very Moorcroft style. She produced new designs herself whilst the other designers continued in a traditional vein. She "broke out" from what was usually a painstakingly fussy design pattern. In my opinion Bossons should keep her page. She is a significant British ceramic artist and should be reinstated to the “British Potters” page along with the other ceramic artists (from which it appears she was removed long ago). Furthermore her name should be reinstated along with the other current Moorcroft designers to the “Moorcroft Pottery” page (which again appears to have been deleted). Finally I need to say that I have never had contact with Moorcroft Pottery, Bossons or anyone associated with it. I just admire her work and can see her innovation. Robertlondon (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I understand your reasoning and happy to accept it as a keep, providing there is a source for the old (now removed) edit, but as I must assume you got your info from a magazine or a book, then why claim it as a source (refer to WP:SOURCE), there is nothing wrong with that, thats is what I do if there is no source on the 'net. But do bear in mind is as I assume the reason why it was targeted for deletion was original research, plus from my experience from school was I was only taught about the S-o-T Big Fours, Moorcroft wasn't one of them, I only know about the company later via a local paper.As for reinstating deleted article, refer to WP:DRV. Willirennen (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect to Moorcroft. She is NOT a significant British ceramic artist... no mention of her in any Ceramic Review article that I can find.Teapotgeorge (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • But she is mentioned by the BBC and The Guardian. Epbr123 (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Which may make her notable but NOT a significant British ceramic artist as has been suggested. Teapotgeorge (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Keep Teapotgeorge reasoning is flawed, or at least showing prejudice. Emma Bossons is a industrial ceramic artist, or perhaps more accurately a designer. As such she would not be expected to appear in "Ceramic Review" which concerns itself with Studio Pottery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.67.235 (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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.