Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carri Leigh 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. Several of the early deletion opinions did not take into account the expansion of the article by Megalibrarygirl, and thus consensus seems to support keeping the article. That said, if any uninvolved editor thinks this close is inappropriate, feel free to revert. (non-admin closure) ansh666 10:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

As sad as this is, I don't believe this person is notable and feels like a case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:VICTIM Gbawden (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are a number of hits on Google for her, however none of these appear to be in reliable sources. The results I am finding are blogs or Reddit. What happened to her COULD be seen as notable....if it was appropriately covered in reliable sources. Delete for now, but if she was covered later on I wouldn't be opposed to re-adding her. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This stub is part of a project for a class, Women in Warfare, which includes studying gender in the military. The stub is meant to be an encyclopedic profile of a U.S. military personnel, and the "news" aspect of it is only the truth. Although perhaps not significant in previous literature or encyclopedic knowledge, Goodwin is included as military personnel for her duty, and we would like to bring her to light. Furthermore, it would be remiss to build her profile without including the story of what happened to her, as it gives further significance to the topic of her death. We would like the chance to continue working on this article. Hannahelong (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good project you are working on, however please bear in mind that subjects on Wikipedia are required to meet certain aspects such as notability. In this case there just isn't any reliable sources to verify this. While yes she did serve in the military, and the events that occurred to her are tragic, it doesn't necessarily equal the creation of a Wikipedia page for her. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No real notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect.Delete even though Goodwin's tragic life is recounted in a book, "Silenced No More": The Courage of a Soldier - Life After Military Sexual Trauma, the book is published by a vanity press Author House. a news search [1] turned up little, and a news archive search on Proquest turned up nothing on "Carri Leigh Goodwin" Topic simply lacks RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It seems to be an university assignment per Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Miami/Women In Warfare (Spring 2016). Also several other articles started within the same assignment have the same problems. Beagel (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Notice. Related Afd is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica Plank. BeagelBeagel (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not news. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Many of you are correct: this is "not news." This is a person who passes GNG. Not only is she written about in multiple sources, her case is reported on over time and in other languages and news sites around the world. I provided the sources and expanded the article somewhat. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Current sourcing clearly passes GNG 1bandsaw (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep following upgrade by Megalibrarygirl. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as reliable sources, including CNN, and The New York Times, have been added to the article; and the subject is still discussed, I think WP:GNG is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Megalibrarygirl - Clearly meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - plenty of reliable sourcing. passes GNG, for sure.BabbaQ (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• revisiting the NYTimes reference is in the paper's online photojournalism blog, "Lens" and is a mention in a short list of military rapers. CNN article has 3 paragraphs. The Business Insider source does not mention Goodwin or the other rape victims in the film by name. It references a Salon story on which the film is based, but I cannot find Goodwin at Salon.com. I do not doubt the horror or rape in the military, or of what happened ot Goodwin. Frankly, writing this makes me feel like I'm supporting rape, but, It's just that the sources do not seem to be there to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Doublechecking myself, a news search [2] leaving out her middle name turns up little; much of what it does turn up are false leads, including pages where Goodwin is mentioned in the online comments section, not in the actual article. Unless somebody can bring sources.... sometimes they exist, even though they fail to show up on searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Invisible War, which seems to be the reason her name pops up in many articles about sexual assault in the military. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed my vote (above), to redirect and merge into a brief paragraph in synopsis section of The Invisible War. thanks, User:OpenFuture. User:Megalibrarygirl, would you be good with that? E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory and OpenFuture: My preference is for her to have her own article. I think the fact that she's covered around the world is pretty important. I know she's not the full subject of the articles she's written up in, but she's pretty important in those articles. That said, if the consensus is to have her redirected and the information about her is included in The Invisible War, I'd rather that happen than her article be deleted. So I'm good with that if my opinion is in the minority. Thanks everyone who is working to come up with valid solutions on this topic. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do continue to think that a redirect is best, because the sourcing is weak, except for the sources related directly to the movie.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage in CNN, Proceso and a noted documentary film (The Invisible War). Why many of the sources about the subject are in other languages is beyond me though.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:36, 25 February 2016 (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.