Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Koshzow


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Mayalld (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Christina Koshzow
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Based on edit history and photo image credits, this article appears to be largely, if not entirely, self-generated by the subject. Beyond this, the style is that of a promotional piece or advertisement. Although the author has provided references for herself, seems to be non-notable. Related resume-like article for Joey Rahimi was previously agreed to be deleted on similar grounds. Shorn again (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of Simon Dodd's edits, I have removed the detailed statements/updates about the College Prowler company and moved them to the main article. I am not a very experienced editor, particularly on this kind of policy matter, but Simon's further comments about coatracking effectively summarize a big part of my concern. Finding out about the recent questionable Facebook-squatting tactics used by that company didn't make me feel any better. Still, I understand the logic of keeping the article as now edited and reduced.--Shorn again (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Exceedingly weak keep. There are two issues bearing on deletion here. First, notability. Notability (people) sets the threshold as coverage as a subject of "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." There seem to be enough cites in the article meeting those criteria to cross the threshold. Second, the autobiographical aspect. While WP:COI and WP:AUTO strongly discourage doing that, as I understand them, they do not prohibit it, and it isn't an independently sufficient reason for deletion at WP:DEL. Although the marginal notability and the autobiograpy aspect do tend to amplify one another (WP:DEL is expressly non-exhaustive), I lean very slightly towards retention. The other problems with the article can be dealt with through editing the article rather than deleting it. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I'm persuaded by Simon Dodd's very cogent reasoning.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  22:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: I've edited the article to strip out a lot of the autobiographical fluff. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Addenda: There could have been a third argument for deletion based on CSD no. 11, to the extent that the article could be thought a species of coatrack for "promot[ing]" this persons's company. My subsequent edits have, I believe, mooted that argument. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * KeepThe accomplishments are notable and documented. The present state of the article seems almost  acceptable. (The picture of herself several decades ago could well be considered irrelevant to an encyclopedic purpose., just as much as a baby picture would be). What we do with spammy articles is remove the spam. DGG (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Apparently Simon Dodd's saved it. In view of the nominator's comments above I now recommend speedy keep under WP:SK ground 1.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  22:06, 30 January 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.