Deletion of Tracey Curtis-Taylor

Comment: 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 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: WP has a policy on the treatment of living people and editors here need to abide by this policy. See iving 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:L)

Comment: Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources over several years clearly meets .  The recent controversy is relevant to the contents of the article but not to the question of its existence
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: and redirect for now. I think this article may now fall into . 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 An article which mainly discusses the controversy around her claims and the rescinded award isn't viable, but is that all that can be sourced?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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)