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. With only 4 participants, there doesn't seem to be enough to determine a consensus. WP:NPASR ( non-admin closure) ansh 666 11:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Christie Goodwin

Christie Goodwin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Since my last (withdrawn) nomination years ago, all the changes have been is what this subject has done lately rather than explain why she is notable in any depth and the references provided in the last nomination does not provide what it really is as all it provides is credit to work as I must assume that it photo gallery of the photographer's work just like they do at Amateur Photographer or every photography magazine out there.

The references given in this page; all it does is provide a credit to the photographer plainly rather than talk more about the photographer like so many articles about photographers does. As with WP:COI editor, since the last nomination, all he did since then is lurk behind an IP address, thinking that nobody is going to catch him editing.

So from the last nomination, have my opinion changed? No. Also, aside all the notable artists this photographer has worked in, there is nothing in this page to hint notability other than a list of works with famous artists which is what social media does, something Wikipedia is not. I personally think however notable or not it is best if this article is deleted and started afresh unless this article can be edited to a satisfactory level per notability guidelines because in this current state, I don't see it passing any of WP:ARTIST. Donnie Park ( talk) 15:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  15:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  15:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  15:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep - The articles in the external links seem like they would be grounds for notability, though they really should be online citations, and I am not entirely sold on the list heavy nature of the article. Still, with work it could be better and I'm not seeing great grounds for deletion. Artw ( talk) 04:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Unless something is done which the editors had been given 6 years to do, I will have to stand by my decision. I wish I had the time to do something with it but I don't otherwise I think it is best deleted and started afresh without the blog nature of this article. As with the list, who added them in? Her partner as he admitted it in the last nomination and what did he do since then, hid behind an IP address thinking that nobody is going to detect him. Donnie Park ( talk) 12:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Replying to the claim above that I am hiding behind an IP. Not hiding behind anything. At all. Still here. Any suggestions are welcome. I'm obviously pretty bad at doing this page, so why not help in stead? Patrick Cusse — 94.12.69.219 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC). reply

• The question is since the first nomination, what have you done in your edits other than namedropping famous musicians into the list of who your partner has worked with when you could had explain what is special about her work compared to famous concert photographers such as Pennie Smith, Mick Rock and Anton Corbijn? All I see her in the way of this edit is that she is just like every run-of-the-mill working photographers, who get their Wikipedia articles successfully nominated for deletion.

Also, if you claim to be not hiding; since then why did you abandon your user account ( Patrickcusse SPA) following the last nomination as this gives an impression that you are trying to hide behind your edits in the hope that nobody will find out and I did unintentionally only because I began to very recently use the watchlist regularly which raised alarm because I saw no improvement through those years as this article is becoming more like an over-glorified blog than a encyclopedia article when it should be.

The question to ask of your partner's notability is what is special about her other than that she is your partner, why should she be special enough to have a Wikipedia page compared to so many similar photographers because anybody with a press pass can work with somebody famous. I don't feel that I am seeing any, neither have I see any of that evidence in that years since the first deletion and what are those references you gave, its just nothing without context and any photographers can get their work published in magazines nowadays. As with editing, there are tutorial out there to help you. Donnie Park ( talk) 00:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC) reply

In all fairness, in the early stages there was criticism on the page, I changed it according to the wishes of editors, and the criticism stopped. Now it's back. I just continued as I did then, assuming it was ok. As for not using the ID to make the changes, wasn't aware that I had to, and back then it was a different email address, which I can no longer access, so I can't retrieve the password. I don't get the remark about the press pass, a press pass will not get you to work with somebody famous. The photographers you mention are famous, yes, completely. Christie is hired a lot by contemporary artists, the ones that now fill stadiums, and some of the interviews mentioned in the article clearly illustrate that. It should make no difference if I'm her partner, her neighbour, or a total stranger. But points taken, all of them. Wouldn't it be easier then to just delete it and start again from scratch? (Patrick Cusse) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.12.69.219 ( talk) 00:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC) reply

"hired a lot by contemporary artists, the ones that now fill stadiums"... So does roadies, backing musicians, tour bus drivers and road managers, your claim does not scream notability to me, if it does why don't they all get Wikipedia articles as well. I don't see any lasting impact she did for the artists, thats all. I think its best if this decision is left to others to decide, also WP:NOTPROMOTION applies. Donnie Park ( talk) 20:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

The question to me seems to be: how do you define notability? Wikipedia is information. You look at entries for actors, musicians etc, most just list personal life, career, filmography or discography. Not necessarily how good or bad they are. Just a list of data. So, when is a photographer notable? The criticism here seems to be that working on big productions for contemporary artists is not it. So when is an actor notable? Or a director? Or anybody else in the creative industry? Donnie seems to have decided that the photographer should not get a page because the road or the road manager does not. While I actually believe many tour managers do merit a factual wikipedia page of all the tours they've run, it also implies that anybody can take a photo and press a button and that artists will hire just anyone with a camera (or a tool belt in the case of a roadie) to do that job. PCusse ( talk) 11:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply

It really is a huge, huge problem. Even looking up artists famous in their field, the article will be laughingly small. The true issue here really has to do with too little knowledge about the art world itself. Well, that and the smugness that goes along with it. What it comes down to is that the majority of individuals here on Wikipedia have little to zero interest in the art world, therefore, the whole art world itself is considered not notable. With the possible exception of sci-fi and video games. (Oddly enough, those are areas that tend to be shunned by the art world!) If you showed up to create an user identity because you enjoy writing and are good at it AND just wanted to help Wikipedia (like I myself intended to do) well, then I must warn you that at this time Wikipedia has zero interest in wanting, attracting, or keeping writers. However, here is the one bright spot in all of this, a biography that is not on Wikipedia cannot be decimated by Wikipedia. -- MurderByDeadcopy ^"bang!" 20:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete, though Goodwin takes photos of well-known celebrities the coverage about her is minimal. For example she's asked for her opinion in a news article in The Independent. She has featured in the March 2015 edition of Practical Photography, but in what capacity I'm unsure. Quite clearly her photographs are used online and she is duly credited as the photographer. Maybe she is on the cusp of notability, but simply being a photographer does not take you over the WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE threshold on its own. If she wins an award, or has an in-depth article written about her in the future, then maybe things wil change. Sionk ( talk) 22:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Sionk, coverage about her is not minimal. There are several linked right there in the article. The interview with Larry LeBlanc for one. Inside the entertainment industry he's the one who interviews everybody who is "notable". Several magazines (Digital Photographer, Practical Photography, Eos...) have interviewed Christie Goodwin about her work. When in addition to several photography magazines who feature her over several pages, Q Magazine does the same, would that not imply notability? How many magazines do you need? You mention the Practical Photography article and hasten to add "in what capacity I'm unsure", jumping to a conclusion. So, the article is not available online, so that implies the writer is lying? Well, that specific article is four pages about Christie Goodwin's work and technique. Happy to email you a pdf. PCusse ( talk) 17:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

PCusse I don't know there have been any evidence of feature articles but from the edits, it does not assert WP:notability in any shape or form, the point of this deletion, aside the excessive namedropping that does not support the article well. Plus all photography magazines does is provide a gallery of photographer's work and barely any coverages about them, just their work, which means that anybody who gets two magazine spreads at Amateur Photographer should get a Wikipedia page because it seems like it. If you don't agree, strip the list namedropping nature away from your article and this is what the article looks like...

Christie Goodwin (born 27 July 1962) is an English art photographer who specialises in music photography.

Christie Goodwin received her BA (hons) in Art Photography from the Royal Academy of Fine Arts in Antwerp in 1986 and worked freelance as a photojournalist for press agencies. In 2005 she moved from Belgium to London and made the move to music photography. She is mainly commissioned for album photography, DVD photography and official tour photography.

The state of this comes off as an article about somebody who is shoot at concerts, hence my point - worse is there are no sources for it to support them and this makes her look like another generic music photographer and all the sources do is provide credits, nothing else.

"The photographers you mention are famous...Christie is hired a lot by contemporary artists, the ones that now fill stadiums" - the question now is, never mind the famous clients, what makes her as special to/as other famous concert photographers especially those I mentioned above?

"Wikipedia is information" - you seriously need to take a look at WP:PLUG because your partner's page look like a Wikipedia page disguised as a MySpace/Facebook like/Linkedin page.

Last of all, have you looked at the links provided at the reasons for nomination? I suggest you do so as opposed to protesting. Lastly before you can protest any further, I invite you to compare your CG's article to another photographer who I wrote about 5 years ago and you will know why your's is a sitting duck for deletion, which makes me think why did I bother to withdraw my nomination 6 years ago, because nothing has changed. Unless you can answer these, I do not want to hear anymore protesting and read the guidelines before you doing anything. Donnie Park ( talk) 21:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Donnie, you have made up your mind. Any arguments are rebuked with "I do not want to hear anymore protesting". It is a challenge to rewrite an article when it already has a big stamp on top saying it's worthless, and when arguments are labeled protests. You have a low opinion of somebody who shoots concerts, and you have made up your mind that she is a generic music photographer. In saying that you still implies that the people who hire her will just hire any generic photographer. Fair enough, you can think that. You could just offer to help rewrite it. Or just go ahead and delete it. I'm sure some day somebody will do a better job at writing this wikipedia page. PCusse ( talk) 22:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Coincidently, yesterday I was curious about a New York photographer I am familiar with and I wondered whether there was enough material to create a Wikipedia article about him. There were picture credits online in abundance, and several recent online articles about a 2015 project of his. There were several blog posts writing his praise. I decided, lacking any verifiable biographical info I wouldn't go ahead with the article.

Similarly with Goodwin there seems to be a bit of blog interest (the Larry LeBlanc piece appears to be on an industry listings website) and plenty of her credited photographs used by music magazines and music websites. Based on the Wikipedia article being sourced entirely to photo credits and there apparently being no verifiable biographical information available (not even on her website), I fall on the side of "Weak delete" (as I said above). On top of all that, the evident conflict of interest of the author suggests the article is being written prematurely for the wrong reasons.

With current, 21st century people, you would expect to find at least one article available about them online. The Hans G. Lehmann article written by Donnie Park at least has one very lengthy newspaper article which is entirely about him (the other sourcing is weak but his career seems largely pre-internet).

I'm not saying anything further on the subject, but wish Goodwin well with her career. IMO other input should be invited here, rather than two people talking it to death. Sionk ( talk) 22:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

WHOA Mr. PCusse, where does the low opinion of concert photographers come from? I have a friend who works as one full time. At the end of the day, its either me who did this or somebody else and after six years, somebody had to nominate this. Just like Sionk said, anybody active in the 21st century can be achieved easily providing they meets the guideline, as for saving this article, can't you just get anybody about like your friend years ago. At the end of the day, you're just making excuses, if it gets deleted, later on, there is always WP:deletion review, so in that case, its best left with you to sort it out yourself because I am becoming tired of this argument when I already missed my Wiki article deadline months ago and me to rewrite, if only I had the time plus I got a list of 100 or so articles to do before my planned retirement from Wikipedia, which is why I don't take requests at all and most people would write articles based on their hobbies and interests and last of all still, where's your friend? Donnie Park ( talk) 20:29, 11 November 2015 (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.