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 delete. There seems to be sufficient consensus that the thorough analysis of available sources is not quite enough to satisfy GNG at this time. The article can always be restored later if the subject receives significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources; as required by GNG. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Bogart[edit]

Andrea Bogart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Claim to notability seems to all be based no one role. Successful actress, but I couldn't see the coverage or significance to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can now make a decision. Boleyn (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: My guess is that this subject is borderline on notability. Primary notability probably comes from the General Hospital role (which was actually significant), and from her more recent Lifetime movie work (the article is out-of-date, and doesn't look to have any roles Bogart has done since 2017). But my guess is that this is the kind of career that is not going to generate much in the way of independent coverage... So likely borderline on WP:NACTOR, but I'm guessing the subject will be a "miss" in terms of WP:BASIC... I will try to remember to monitor this discussion, but I'm not ready to !vote at this time. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no coverage on her. One ref is dead, the other is woeful. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 23:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Seems to be known for other things, like yoga instructor, "influencer" with over 10,000 twitter and instagram followers. Not convincing enough on way or another for me to !vote. may need more research on the topic before deleting. Gaff (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Took a look online to check for significant coverage, found numerous articles and interviews. Perviously failed WP:SIGCOV, but I think with the added references now meets notability guidelines. Weber1982 (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Don't think the WP:INTERVIEWS that were added count as secondary reliable sources. They offer very little WP:INDEPENDENT commentary on the subject. Overall, subject fails WP:NACTOR and WP:BASIC. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Her roles have mostly been one-offs/bit parts. Not notable -Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bit-part actor. Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 08:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not accurate – she's not a "bit-part actor": those don't headline Lifetime TV movies. More accurately, she's a character actor who has been working for two decades: those generally don't merit Wikipedia articles, but they aren't "bit-part actors". That's insulting. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "those generally don't merit Wikipedia articles" - they sometimes do, sometimes do not, but many character actors are well-known. Kirill C1 (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double voting, this vote should not be counted. And "bit-part" part is not factually correct. Kirill C1 (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As this vote was not crossed, I fixed this myself per Wikipedia:Be bold. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant role in major soap opera, several recurring roles on TV and main roles in Lifetime channel films. She also had film roles, including lead role in The Last Run opposite Amy Adams and Fred Savage. So she meets WP:NACTRESS. Sources were added, there is enough coverage. Kirill C1 (talk) 12:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There really isn't – 3 of the 4 sources you added are mere passing mentions. Nothing that has happened in this discussion moves me off what would likely be a "weak delete" vote. This subject is just not going to clear WP:BASIC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, she satisfies WP:NACTRESS and is certainly not a bit-part actress as was stated above. [1], and here is not a passing mention [2]. Here is another source - I think the fact that such reliable website writes about her is the indication that she is notable [3]. Kirill C1 (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, had a role in a major soap opera and has received significant coverage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She may be borderline at WP:ENT but, when you look at the interviews with her, she would meet WP:GNG.
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTRESS. All of the sources in the article or mentioned above are either trivial mentions of the subject which are not in-depth and are brief mentions; are unreliable self-published websites; or they are interviews which do not count towards notability because they lack independence and are too closely connected to the subject. There are zero sources in the article which are both independent and in-depth which is what is required to meet GNG. Likewise, contrary to what others are claiming, she also fails WP:NACTRESS as we have no proof that any of the other roles beyond General Hospital are notable. This is evidenced by the lack of independent sources saying so. Promotional publications and press releases are not independent RS. We need independent critical reviews of her performances to prove criteria 1 of NACTRESS; otherwise it's just personal opinion not backed by evidence.4meter4 (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is that such websites as Deadline write about actors' new roles if they are notable, and the proof that her roles are significant is that it is mentioned that the actress got role (and there was written more than here [4]), and in subsequent news the fact that she appeared is cited, so she is known by these roles. She also appeared in recurring role in Emmy winning series, and in above mentioned film she had a star billing (billed before Vyto Rugynis). There are also actors that have one significant roles and are notable. And I would also argue that critical reviews are needed for criteria 3. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spoilertv.com and Deadline are promotional sources and are not considered independent coverage because they are essentially repeats of WP:ROUTINE press releases which are not independent of the shows and actors they are helping to promote, or are regurgitations of WP:TABLOID type content. In other words they are not useable materials for proving notability under Wikipedia’s policies at WP:SIGCOV or WP:Verifiability.4meter4 (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mentioned it to show that Deadline wrote more about her than this website. She also appeared had a star billing in several films, including aforementioned film and film with Kathleen Quinlan [5] (her name is on poster, that probably shows it is significant role). Kirill C1 (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Deadline, along with Variety, THR and Wrap is used precisely to demonstrate notability, otherwise there would be no reliable sources to provide notability for actors. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are tons of entertainment publications of quality. Variety is one, so is Entertainment Weekly, The Hollywood Reporter, as well as general newspapers. Deadline is typically not a good source. The issue here though is the sources are not in-depth enough to prove notability. Further, a film poster doesn’t prove anything. Lots of non-notable films get made. This particular film has no wiki article, and I’m not sure was ever released into theaters. I can find no independent sources reviewing the film or which indicate that the film itself was notable, let alone any of the actor’s performances. Again we need an independent review of the film demonstrating the role the actress portrayed was significant to pass that guideline. Trivial mentions don’t count. Read WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • First, it's not like there are only three cinema publications of quality. Second, I have written that Quinlan stars in it (and also Lin Shaye). There is another film that has reviews and were Bogart's name is on poster. If the role is starring, it is significant per se and if it is in notable film it satisfies the criteria, there are significant supporting roles and even roles in episodes may attract coverage. There are multiple sources that combined demonstrate notability. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Source analysis. Given the pushback here; I have decided to give a detailed source analysis which clearly shows we lack enough RS to justify keeping the article per wikipedia's notability criteria. All of the sources and the external links from the article are included, as well as all additional sources presented so far at this AFD.4meter4 (talk) 03:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis

Source	Independent?	Significant Coverage?	Reliable?	Pass/Fail	Notes
"Andrea Bogart". Hollywood.com. Retrieved 2016-05-28.	N	N	Y	N	Essentially a credits list likely provided by the subject, their publicist, or taken directly from IMDB
Michael Fairman (December 17, 2011). "Andrea Bogart talks about her exit from General Hospital!". Michael Fairman On-Air On-Soaps. Archived from the original on July 1, 2016. Retrieved 2016-05-28.	N	Y	N	N	As an interview source is directly connected to the subject and therefore lacks independence. Self published tabloid website run by actor Michael Fairman with no editorial oversite; not considered reliable RS per WP:Verifiability and WP:TABLOID
"Emily Bergl Upped To Regular On Showtime's 'Shameless'; Andrea Bogart To Recur On 'Ray Donovan'". Deadline Hollywood. March 13, 2014. Retrieved 2016-05-28.	N	N	Y	N	Press release of new role; most likely paid for and provided directly from Bohemia Group and Intelligence Artists Agency. Lacks independence and not RS per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestravelguide/2020/03/23/from-cocktail-classes-to-an-arts-salon-try-these-virtual-hotel-experiences/?sh=37755e44657a	N	N	Y	N	Trivial mention promoting the subject's yoga classes which directly link to her self written self promotional Facebook posts; very brief and clearly self promotional
NCIS Exclusive First Look: Who's Tony Chatting Up on the Beach in the Bahamas...?	?	N	Y	N	Very brief mention of the actress highlighting a picture of her in a bikini. Likely provided directly by the NCIS producers and paid for to promote the show; even if independent not significant RS
https://2paragraphs.com/2017/06/who-is-wife-heather-in-the-wrong-neighbor-on-lifetime/	N	Y	N	N	https://2paragraphs.com/about/ is an essentially pay to promote media content engine; it therefore lacks independence and is not considered reliable RS; most likely paid for by the subject or her agency
This Lifetime Original Will Make You Appreciate Your Noisy Neighbors	Y	Y	Y	Y	Independent film review in Bustle (magazine). This source is good.
HAWAII FIVE-0	N	N	N	N	Much like IMDB or wikipedia, site can be altered by anyone with an account.
Articles for deletion/Andrea Bogart at IMDb	N	N	N	N	See WP:IMDB
Eades, Chris. "Andrea Bogart Is "So Grateful" For Her Time on GENERAL HOSPITAL". Soaps In Depth. Retrieved 5 September 2021.	N	Y	N	N	As an interview lacks independence to be considered a RS. Also fails per WP:TABLOID
Steinberg, Lisa. "Andrea Bogart – Cheer Camp Killer". StarryMag. Retrieved 5 September 2021.	N	Y	N	N	As an interview lacks independence to be considered a RS. Also fails per WP:TABLOID
Turano, Sammi. "Seduced By My Neighbor's Andrea Bogart Interviewed". PCM World News. Retrieved 5 September 2021.	N	Y	N	N	As an interview lacks independence to be considered a RS.
https://www.nerdsandbeyond.com/2019/09/23/andrea-bogart-on-this-weeks-episode-of-in-love-with-michael-rosenbaum-and-chris-sullivan/	N	N	N	N	Unreliable website; paid for PR which lacks independence; not in-depth enough to be significant
https://www.tvovermind.com/andrea-bogart/	N	N |	N	N	Trivial fluff website; not clear if the site is independent or accepts money to promote subjects; not likely to reliable; WP:TABLOID applies
https://deadline.com/2015/09/powers-enrico-colantoni-andrea-bogart-snowfall-1201562096/	N	N	Y	N	lacks independence and significance as a WP:ROUTINE press announcement; content likely provided by and paid for by the subject or her publicist or the network; WP:NOTTABLOID
https://www.spoilertv.com/2014/03/ray-donovan-season-2-andrea-bogart-gets.html	N	N	Y	N	lacks independence and significance as a WP:ROUTINE press announcement; content likely provided by and paid for by the subject or her publicist or the network; WP:NOTTABLOID

• • There is certainly a problem here - half the sources are deemed unworthy only because they are 'likely' to be not independent. Deadline Hollywood is a good source, and is used in great many Wikipedia articles. Casting news are frequently used in Wikipedia article as source, and you can not properly write career section for actors without them. My main concern is - if the sources are needed to cover the topic (in this case the actress) and interviews are not good, the news about actor specifically are not good enough, recaps and sneek peeks of TV shows are not good enough, random news about actors are not good enough, and the mentioning of the role actor played is not significant enough, then what could theoretically be used to establish notability? We can just disqualify all the possible sources and delete most articles. Then, the rule says that sources can be combined, and together they may be enough to write the article. Kirill C1 (talk) 07:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • While I do not agree with the description of the sources and the approach seems too critical to the sources ('likely provided', 'likely paid'), the person still has enough significant roles and hence passes WP:Nactress. There are several reviews you can find in the Internet. Kirill C1 (talk) 07:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Кирилл С1 You are fundamentally misunderstanding the basics of evaluating sources at AFD, and the basics of understanding how we prove notability at AFD. I strongly urge you to read WP:GNG. We are not interested at AFD in proving anything but notability as defined there. "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Ultimately, I don't think you have a strong grasp on what makes a quality source per wikipedia policy, as evidence by your defense of sources that are clearly not reliable or independent.

Not all sources that are permissible for use in building article content are equally usable or valuable towards proving notability. For example, GNG states: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." Deadline Hollywood routinely prints press releases, and we explicitly exclude those from counting towards notability per GNG policy. Likewise, interviews are directly "produced by the article's subject" and are also not usable towards proving notability. This doesn't mean that we can't use those sources in writing articles, it merely means we can't use them to justify keeping an article at AFD. The problem is not with my analysis but with your failure to accept wikipedia's written policies at WP:GNG. My analysis is not unusual, but standard/typical practice here at AFD for evaluating source content when we are measuring it against notability standards. As it stands, there is only one quality source currently in evidence which can be used to prove notability because there is only one source that is independent, reliable, and demonstrates significant coverage. Typically we require a minimum of three sources that demonstate independence, reliability, and significant coverage to prove notability.4meter4 (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To give you examples of quality sources for actors and entertainment in general: Variety, Entertainment Weekly, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, books written by someone other than the subject or someone closely connected to them that are not self published, etc. are all quality sources in entertainment. They write original content, don't print press releases, have editorial oversight, and don't accept payment from the people whom they are writing on. This demonstrates independence and reliability.

To give you examples of poor quality sources: tvovermind.com, www.spoilertv.com, deadline.com, www.thefutoncritic.com, 2paragraphs.com, tvline.com/ are all sources with little or no editorial oversight; most routinely print press releases; most routinely accept money from the people they write on or their agents. In other words all have problems with independence and reliability.09:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

"You are fundamentally misunderstanding the basics of evaluating sources at AFD, and the basics of understanding how we prove notability at AFD." No, I am not. I participated in and have read enough discussions to see that some guidelines are interpreted differently, that are different approaches to establishing notability. Filmakers whose work was reviewed in reliable sources were proposed for deletion, even academy-award nominees were proposed. There are different perceptions what significant is. If we read that the purpose of Wikipedia is creating widely accessible and free encyclopedia, and giving access to the sum of all human knowledge, we will doubt that deleting the article about the actress who co-starred in films with Jason London, Amy Adams and had recurring TV roles. "We are not interested at AFD in proving anything but notability as defined there." - but if we understand that the actor is notable by looking at his roles, do we need to look at the sources so thoroughly, especially since there are more sources in the article than in many other articles about actors. Kirill C1 (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since when Deadline Hollywood is poor quality? It is not worse than Wrap, or DenofGeeks, or Screen Rant. In truth, there are more reliable sources than 4 mentioned, and even more top sources. It was written by you that the news about her was likely provided by network - how so, if the news consists of two casting pieces about project on different channels.Kirill C1 (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple reliable sources are referring to Deadline - "according to deadline" while reporting news [6] [7], [8], also Slashfilm, Space.com, Vulture, and others. Kirill C1 (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the deadline pieces are press releases. Cast announcements are press releases. We can't use press releases as proof of notability at AFD. Further WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments are not valid arguments at AFD. At this point I am not going to respond any further because of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:CIR obstructionism.4meter4 (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, I disagree with this view in a "narrow" sense – reports like this in Deadline Hollywood do somewhat contribute to "notability" in that they can be used to establish "significant roles" under WP:NACTOR. But they are almost always "passing mentions" and are not "significant coverage"... Again, the important metric in the case of WP:BLPs is WP:BASIC, which easily trumps WP:NACTOR as the actually relevant standard, and again I agree with the broader argument that this subject has not received enough "significant coverage" to actually pass WP:BASIC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per 4meter4's source assessment and my own research that was not able to find much more, e.g. Los Angeles Times, 2019; VH1, 2013. The criteria for WP:NACTOR does not appear to be met, including significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions, and relatedly, WP:BASIC notability also does not appear to be supported. Beccaynr (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - very little available in terms of independent analysis and content from RS, obviously fails NACTOR requirements too. I very much agree with the comments from 4meter4, Beccaynr and Qwaiiplayer above me Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:54, 21 September 2021 (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.