Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Boucher Hartman


 * 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.  Sandstein  06:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Lisa Boucher Hartman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unfortunately, WP:BEFORE searches with both her current and previous names do not turn up independent RS with SIGCOV. Current sourcing does not statisfy GNG. I'm not sure whether NACTOR #1 is met, but NACTOR merely predicts whether someone is likely to be notable under GNG and does not waive the requirements under GNG. MrClog (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree that there is no SIGCOV. As for the actor notability criteria, the roles need to be significant and in notable productions; as far as I can tell per imdb her stints were sorely lacking in those respects. PK650 (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: I have found another Boston Globe article: https://www.newspapers.com/image/444119274/?terms=lisa%2Bvan%2Boosterum. The issue is more with WP:NACTOR, in my opinion, and it is going to turn on the subject's theatre work, since her film and television credits are not enough to meet the notability standards. She had main roles in the theatre productions listed in the article—but how notable are those productions themselves? I am open to other people's opinions on this issue. Dflaw4 (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you email me a picture of that article? I can only access the Boston Globe for the period 1884-1922 via newspaperARCHIVE.com. My email address is mrclog@protonmail.com. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My apologies, MrClog, I should have pointed out that I wasn't able to access it, either. The "preview", if you like, showed that the subject's name came up in the article a couple of times, so I provided the link here in case anyone could access it. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I requested a copy of the article at WP:RX. --MrClog (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * MrClog, that's great—I didn't know that could be done. Thanks, Dflaw4 (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * here's a clip of the article. In my opinion, it doesn't establish notability. It's mostly a comment by her and has little secondary-source material about her in it. --MrClog (talk) 12:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, MrClog. I'm just not sure that these performances were notable. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: per Nom, that didn't change after viewing the extra source., please note (as far as I understand it) that when adding a source that is "accessed" it needs to actually be accessible to that editor for verifiability. Otr500 (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, my apologies for that, Otr500. I was unaware at the time that WP:RX existed and am now ensuring that any sources I find are accessible to all. Thanks, Dflaw4 (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * , While I would like all sources to be "accessible to all", that is not always practical and not required. In this case, "you", must be able to access the source. when presenting it. Otherwise, it could be considered refbombing (that does happen) but assuming good faith is more than a token statement. A source does not have to be only found online. Mistakes that are made in good faith are just that, mistakes. Sometimes a source may be contested and sometimes not, until showing up at AFD. If an editor finds a reliable source that provides significant coverage of the subject (of the article or content) it is acceptable online, in books, newspapers, or other acceptable media even if behind a WP:PAYWALL and cost to access. Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. I would like to point out that a source can be acceptable for content, without advancing notability, and does not have to be solely about the subject as long as coverage is significant. The article presents (just giving an example) a [clipping] from newspaper.com as a source. A full page view is also acceptable via Newspapers.com. A problem to me is that the source is more about Hedwig and the Angry Inch and Gene Dante than the subject of this article. Boucher is listed as "co-star" and the source actually states, "Lisa Boucher has little to do most of the time except stand stage left and scowl". There is not a lot of significant coverage here for the subject as far as advancing notability. Anyway, keep up the good work and don't be discouraged. We need all the editors we can get to keep Wikipedia going strong. Otr500 (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am certainly not as familiar with the Wikipedia procedures as some, as I have only been participating since late last year, Otr500. In this case, my "Weak Keep" voted relies heavily on the notability of the stage productions the subject has been in. I'm really not sure how notable they are, so I'm erring on the side of caution. But I completely understand where the "Delete" voters are coming from. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Please continue "erring on the side of caution". None of us are perfect as we depend on "what we can find". An editor may find "something that was missed" (a better source), that may save the article or even advance an alternative to deletion. I am against the stigma that editors have to be an inclusionist or deletionist. This is drawing battle lines that are inappropriate. If notability is questioned sometimes we might have to "prove it". Otr500 (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Otr500, I appreciate your thoughts and insight. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Just to clarify my position above, I do think there is enough sourcing for WP:GNG, but I'm still unsure as to whether WP:NACTOR is satisfied. I stand by my vote above. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Passing mention here and there, not seeing any in-depth coverage. Not everyone who appeared (or was heard...) on a TV or silver screen is notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:48, 15 April 2020 (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.