Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gina Mastrogiacomo (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Mastrogiacomo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Gina Mastrogiacomo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I just performed the minimal search (step D of AFD) and found nothing new since 2015. The few sources used by the article are basically useless, briefly mentioning the subject by name while discussing other things. In my opinion not a single one establishes notability, just like the cleanup tag suggests. The article has already been through AFD in 2015, and the result was delete.

Still, deleting an article on an actress with an arguably recognizable name doesn't strike me as uncontroversial, so here we are. CapnZapp (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I mostly see her referenced in content covering Goodfellas (Looper: [1], ScreenRant: [2], the book Made Men: [3]), but the only significant coverage of her I can find that doesn't seem to just be a passing reference to her role in an otherwise obviously notable film is from thelocalreport.in, which appears to be a blog and not a reliable source ([4]). I think this is enough to say she fails WP:GNG. As for WP:NACTOR, "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows...," emphasis added. I don't think single-episode appearances in Seinfeld, ER, or The X-Files hit "significant." Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 21:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know what you expect to find -- new articles written about a dead actress? Granted, she's not famous like Robin Williams, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't have an article. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 01:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not how Wikipedia notability requirements work. One imprecise way of saying it is: if an actress is notable it is easy to find reputable sources discussing her and her career (unless perhaps we're talking early 1900s cinema where sources are more likely to be books not always accessible from the web). If you can find even a single good source discussing the subject (that brings up - actually discusses, mind you, not merely mentions - at least two of her roles), you should easily be able to argue she meets GNG/BIO/ENT. In-depth interviews, retrospectives, even other actors discussing the subject's contributions to cinema. Anything with substance. The age of these sources does not matter. Conversely, we are having this AfD because if noone among us can find any such source, and remember, the search didn't start yesterday, but in 2020 when the article was tagged, that is a clear indicator she simply is not notable (per Wikipedia's definition). Since you are the article creator, it's important to add that should your work be deleted that is not meant as personal criticism. It simply means the article meets one of our reasons for deletion (WP:DEL-REASON, specifically #8 in this case). Hope that helps CapnZapp (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No independent notability - No significant role, No RS discussing her work, fails GNG and WP:NACTORDeathlibrarian (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since subject quite evidently does not meet the requirements set down by either WP:GNG or WP:ACTOR. As it happens, I've enjoyed her work in Goodfellas but personal predilections mean nothing in these matters. Wikipedia is neither a directory nor a haphazard assortment of actor bios. IMDb is that-a way. -The Gnome (talk) 12:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR. I added multiple critical reviews of her performances to the article. She was the lead female character in Space Avenger, and she had a couple larger parts in television films in addition to her significant role in Goodfellas. All of these performances were reviewed in Variety, and were likely reviewed elsewhere. Note to closer. Please consider that I have improved the article by adding references, text, and copy editing after all of the above comments were made. 4meter4 (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are multiple, reliable sources on the subject, including extensive, in-depth analysis and commentary on her performances. Banks Irk (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: WP:NACTOR criterion #1, which was invoked above, states that the subject must've had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Which are these multiple notable films or TV shows? And, more importantly, where are her significant performances? I offer some forensics that cut through the unreasonable hype:
- She appeared in Goodfellas. The article piles on no less than five references that supposedly support the claim in the text that she "delivered a performance praised for its passionate and realistic delivery". (a) CNN's article quoting Roger Ebert simply identifies Mastrogiacomo in a photo caption. (b) Another CNN article does not mention Mastrogiacomo at all. (c) From the review in Screen Rant we're informed she played her role "with real humanity". (d) In The Decider report we read that Liotta's characters "ogles women — his mistresses, Janice (Gina Mastrogiacomo) and Sandy (Debi Mazar)". That's all. And (e) in the New York Times piece, Mastrogiacomo only gets a name drop. That was actually her only passably significant appearance on TV or the movies.
- She also appeared in an instantly forgettable role as a prostitute in one Seinfeld episode; in another walk-through in an NYPD Blue episode, so irrelevant that not even the NYPD Blue fansite mentions her; and, if you saw Jungle Fever, you might have missed her as "Louise," a tiny speaking part of half a dozen seconds screen time overall. From the on, it's all further downhill: a couple of small parts in Motorcycle Gang and Tall, Dark and Deadly, while the Wikipedia article on Harry and the Hendersons, her first movie, does not even mention her.
I have no idea what's behind the effort, which is otherwise admirable for its tenacity, to insert an article about a rather obscure actress in Wikipedia but the reality is there is nothing out there to support that. -The Gnome (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She has a major supporting role in Tall, Dark, and Deadly according to the review in Variety, and has the leading female character role in the film Space Avenger (where she is the only leading actress among a cast otherwise made up of men). Her role in Goodfellas is significant as a mid sized supporting role in an important film. I would count all three of these as significant parts; enough to pass WP:NACTRESS. I should point out that while we currently lack articles on both Tall, Dark, and Deadly and Space Avenger, there are enough critical reviews of both of those that we could have articles on them which pass WP:SIGCOV. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this now is clutching at straws. For a start, bringing up the fact that she had a role in some film whose "cast was otherwise made up of men" is neither here nor there. There is nothing significant about that, unless we were doing some analysis from a feminist perspective - which would be welcome but it's not what we're here for. Then, you resort to linguistic twisters in order to upgrade and magnify Mastrogiacomo's contributions. There is nothing about a "major supporting role" in the Variety review. Her role in Goodfellas no one in sources assessed as "mid-sized". Above, I went through the related sources on Goodfellas in detail and the most we have is that she played the part "with real humanity". Verbiage such as the claim in the article where it is claimed "delivered a performance praised for its passionate and realistic delivery" has no legs to stand on, i.e. no sources amounting to such arating. These are words entirely made up by an editor. As to the movies Tall, Dark, and Deadly and Space Avenger supposedly getting some time in the future their own Wikipedia article, and thus justifying the claim about Mastrogiacomo having taken part in "multiple" notable films, that's just pure and unacceptable speculation.
When one wants to look up obscure artists, Wikipedia should not be one's first choice. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that goes by sources. It's not a depository of record or an assortment of random information. -The Gnome (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • She very clearly meets WP:NACTOR #1 by virtue of significant roles in multiple, notable films and TV shows. I don't find the denigration of the roles in highly notable films and TV shows or the denigration of other films as non-notable very convincing, and I am truly puzzled by the ascribing of improper motives to those editors who oppose deletion. In any event, I've added three additional sources. Banks Irk (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Denigration" seems a bit extreme; I don't think it's unreasonable to question the notability of Space Avenger or Tall, Dark, and Deadly. I don't think there's any reason to assume anyone has bad motives here in either direction; this is a marginally notable person and that tends to be where AfD arguments emerge.
I disagree with The Gnome on two important points: her role in Goodfellas appears to be significant and covered by reliable sources, and WP:OR is not relevant here at all (that covers original research occuring on Wikipedia, and isn't about source reliability; WP:RSEDITORIAL is relevant, but reviews are generally reliable for the purposes of establishing notability). I'm still not convinced she meets WP:NACTOR—though I could find some coverage of Space Avenger suggesting it might have been notable (along with the Variety piece, there's this review in the Orlando Sentinel [5]), it's yet another borderline thing. If she hadn't been in Goodfellas, I can't imagine a strong argument in favor of her notability, so it seems to be the only role that truly meets the criteria laid out. That said, it should be noted that NACTOR is a guideline; it is possible for someone to be notable without meeting criteria (see for instance Peter Ostrum—note this isn't an other stuff exists argument for inclusion, just an example of a case where NACTOR is not met but GNG is, and it's an exception and not the rule; we don't have an article for Carrie Henn, who played Newt in Aliens).
Is this a case where an actor is sufficiently notable for a single film? Honestly, I don't know. I'd be inclined to support inclusion if there were sources that had significant coverage of her; as is we have a handful of passing mentions of her in routine coverage. The mentions in Made Men, Women and Mixed Race Representation in Film, and Understanding Tracy Letts are all brief—in each case, less than a paragraph, not really significant for establishing notability. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 23:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just one more remark, for Banks Irk: A contributor who's enthusiastic about a subject, such as a fan of an actor, and acts accordingly in Wikipedia, is not acting with "improper motives". Let's reserve such potential motives for editors who balance editorial duty with getting paid for their work, who promote here political ideologies, or who overpreach their nations' glories. I do not assign any kind of improrpiety to any of the editors who I see here suggesting the oposite of what I suggest or to those who've contributed to the text I'm suggesting should be taken down. Enthusiasm and fandom can sometimes mislead us but they're not perforce "improper" sentiments. -The Gnome (talk) 13:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • She doesn't pass. She has had a few "significant" roles, however they aren't in notable films (eg space avenger). Otherwise, her roles have been minor. I agree, her only notable role was in Goodfellas, and that's not enough to warrant an article either with WP:NACTOR or GNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, The Gnome, for your analysis. CapnZapp (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: I think the subject gets up on WP:GNG given the improvements which have made to the article. I'm not so sure about WP:NACTOR—maybe yes, maybe no—but all in all, there's enough for a Weak Keep. Dflaw4 (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gina_Mastrogiacomo_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1121787578"