Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christie Goodwin


 * 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The result was   keep, nomination withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Christie Goodwin

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I having to nominate this as the WP:PROD have been contested a number of times by a COI SPA user, even if he have been warned.

I cannot see any trace of reliable third party sources for this article, neither can I see any notability backed by third party reliable sources, hence nomination for this promotional article.

Being edited by a SPA SPA user dosen't help its notability, neither is photographs, that is linked to reliable third party sources but only credits the photographer. I am willing to withdraw this nomination if notability can be proven. Donnie Park (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have been talking to Patrickcusse SPA, he has posted on the talk page that there are a couple of indepth articles on her. They are not online but the information, if accurate, might establish notability.   GB fan  talk 14:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If he can get these news article and use it as a source, I will withdraw my nomination as notability is proven, but I don't feel that being credited itself (as those links states) is going to count as notability. Donnie Park (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But on the other hand, I will withdraw this nomination to allow this article to improve considering it have improved from being a vanity article, only if notability can be proven. Donnie Park (talk) 12:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I am assuming good faith about the two indepth magazine articles that have been added to the article. They establish notability.  The article still needs to be checked for neutrality because it has been extensively edited by a person with a revealed conflict of interest, but that is an editing issue not a deletion issue.   GB fan  talk 14:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Consider the nomination withdrawn. Donnie Park (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 17 November 2009 (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.