Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Hickey

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. Consensus is clear. Though the article creator has tried to make the case, no one else was swayed. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Hickey

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

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

i fail to see how she's a notable actress, she's only held very, very minor, mostly unnamed roles or roles in non-notable productions. The claims about winning best actress come from non-notable awards as well. There is no in depth coverage of her to be found and the bulk of the sources here are absolutely unreliable or completely primary like her own CV. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Tennessee. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for opening discussion. The criteria for inclusion doesn't revolve around our personal views on whether roles are minor or major. The topic of this article, per policy, has been covered by notable and reliable sources. The majority of the information was pulled from Belmont University, TV Guide, Arizona Daily Star, Apple Inc., and Voyage LA. I'm not sure how the other site, Actors Access, shows signs of being an unreliable source. I also don't see how the aforementioned references are less reliable than those used in pages like Emma Fuhrmann and Saxon Sharbino, which largely cite sources that don't even have Wikipedia pages. The notable sources are there, and this page can grow over time. Deletion isn't necessary. -- James26 (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my personal opinion, it's evidenced by the lack of sources. The sources in the article are almost entirely primary or unreliable (Voyage group is pay to publish interviews and worthless.) PRAXIDICAE🌈 01:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the sources are Belmont University, TV Guide, Arizona Daily Star, and Apple Inc. How are those unreliable? -- James26 (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, read what I said. PRAXIDICAE🌈 01:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've read what you said multiple times. Can you tell me how those do not count as reliable sources and don't verify the claims in the article? -- James26 (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:42 - after nearly 8k edits, I'd think this would be something you should understand. The sources aren't coverage OF her. PRAXIDICAE🌈 02:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

The majority of the article's body is pulled from those reliable sources, which are all dedicated to her (see the ref list). The citations for Actors Access are mainly credits. I don't know if Voyage LA is a paid site. I have no problem removing it. Can you verify that? -- James26 (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is significant coverage, both Belmont sources are affiliated with her and are press releases, ADS is an interview and TV Guide is a listing, no more reliable than IMDB. PRAXIDICAE🌈 02:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just following what's written in the link you provided. " Not: articles written by the topic (including interviews), paid for by the topic, their website, or their organization. Not a press release written by a publicist". Do you have proof that the Belmont sources were written by her, paid for by her, paid for by her website, or written by her publicist? Do you have proof that TV Guide is "no more reliable than IMDB?" ADS verifies the claims made. Do you have proof that it was paid for by her? -- James26 (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to go, bud. Let me know if you can provide proof of any of the things I mentioned. -- James26 (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TV Guide is a listing you provided and IMDb is depreciated as a source as it's self-published. The links you have given aren't significant coverage of her. I've been mentioned in various media, doesn't make me notable for our purposes here. Oaktree b (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The fact that someone tried to defend such article, it smells a little foul... Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing foul. I've cited Wikipedia policy. For an article to be deleted, one needs to establish proof that policy has been violated. The policies in question are independence and reliability. The questions here are:
- Is there proof that Hickey created the sources, paid to have them created, or had a publicist do so?
- Is there proof that the sources are not reliable?

If there's proof, go ahead and present it. -- James26 (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable parts in non-notable short films, the awards aren't notable either. Oaktree b (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the question is whether the article adheres to Wikipedia policy, not whether anyone thinks her parts are notable. The article cites reliable sources which have not been proven to be created or paid for by her. -- James26 (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If she plays bit-parts, she doesn't qualify for ACTOR. GNG would also likely not be met here either. No significant coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all things considered, I'm not seeing much of a case here for WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. James26's insistence that even the TV Guide should count towards coverage, shows a pretty poor understanding of notability guidelines.-KH-1 (talk) 04:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The TV Guide reference is gone. It wasn't needed. I'll simply quote the notability guideline.

From WP:GNG: "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."
"There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected."
Per guidelines, this is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Per guidelines, the definition of independent is a source that "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."
- Meet Andrea Hickey -- Voyage LA
The Voyage site is not as established as the others, but it also dedicated significant coverage to the subject. According to its guidelines, the periodical does not collect and sell data, and there is no mention of it charging for coverage.

From Wikipedia:Notability (people): " 'Notable' in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary." WP:NACTOR is secondary to the General Notability Guideline.

Again, how does the article fail to meet the primary policy guidelines cited above? -- James26 (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my view, AfDs are best argued by stating your view & evidence, once; and allowing others to do the same. Arguing the toss at length with each and every person who expresses a contrary opinion is kinda obsessive behaviour which is not productive, is often unproductive. Repeatedly waving the same three sources, which have repeatedly failed to impress other users, is, again, unpersuasive. At some point you need to take on board & accept that others have formed a legitimate, different view. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Tagishsimon No problem. Great point. My issue is that people typing "Delete" aren't explaining how the article fails to meet the GNG guidelines. I've explained how it does. If an article I worked hard on has to be deleted, fine, but I'd rather it not be deleted unfairly. -- James26 (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we have, extensively, you're just refusing to acknowledge that you're incorrect in your interpretation of GNG and other policies. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "interpretation." I've pasted direct quotes. Explain how I'm incorrect. I'm listening. Explain how the sources are not reliable and independent. Explain how the coverage is not significant. You also haven't answered my question: Do you have proof that she or her representatives paid to have any of the sources created? -- James26 (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDHT. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've politely asked you to explain how the article fails to meet guidelines, which is completely reasonable in a deletion discussion, and you've simply dismissed me, probably because you can't explain. You could learn from this part: "Stop writing, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you." But, yes, we should stop interacting. -- James26 (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there appears to be insufficient support in independent and reliable secondary sources for WP:GNG/WP:BASIC or WP:NACTOR notability. The first source in the article, Tucson actress Andrea Hickey finds Hollywood success 'The Wild West Chronicles' (Tuscon.com, Jul 15, 2021) is based on an interview and does not appear to describe significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; the reliance on an interview and information from the subject means there is limited independent support for WP:BASIC notability. The second source is Meet Andrea Hickey (VoyageLA, Aug 6, 2020) which is an interview without secondary context or commentary. This style of promotional content appears to be part of the editorial policy of VoyageLa: "As you browse through our stories you’ll notice that many of our interviews aren’t as polished as you’ll find elsewhere in the media. That’s intentional [...] Accordingly our mission is to build a platform that fosters collaboration and support for small businesses, independent artists and entrepreneurs [...]" The third source is from Belmont University, where Hickey graduated from in 2010, i.e. Andrea Hickey ’10 Finds Success as Actress in Los Angeles (June 15, 2021), so this is not an independent source, in addition to its reliance on quotes from Hickey. The fourth source in the article leads to "resumes.actorsaccess.com//one_page_resume.cfm" but I only get a message stating "The page you have attempted to view is private." However, given that it appears to be a resume, it does not appear to be the kind of independent, secondary sourcing needed to help support notability per the guidelines, and it is used to support the existence of minor film festival awards. The fifth source is an event announcement that does not mention her and would not support notability if it did. The sixth source is also from Belmont University, which as noted above, is not independent per the guidelines and cannot support notability. The TV Guide source suggested in this discussion also does not appear to help support notability, including because it does not indicate support for WP:NACTOR by demonstrating significant roles in multiple notable productions. My online search found another promotional interview that reminded me of the VoyageLA interview, (Meet Andrea Hickey: Actress, Shoutout Arizona, August 10, 2020) and this is also a Voyage Group publication (e.g. "we’ve grown to almost a dozen cities, generated millions of page views and helped tens of thousands of entrepreneurs and creatives share their stories."). Beyond the lack of independent and secondary content available from the Voyage Group productions to support notability, the apparent promotional purpose of these publications indicate they are little more than press releases and not suitable for supporting encyclopedic content. Overall, the limited independent biographical information available from sources is not particularly in-depth and detailed, so there is not much available to combine per WP:BASIC into an article about this subject at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I appreciate your courteous explanation. As mentioned, I can deal with a deletion as long as it's fair and my questions are not ignored. The Independent policy notes: "written by the topic (including interviews), paid for by the topic, their website, or their organization. Not a press release written by a publicist." Can you show me a policy that states that articles from an alma mater violate the Notability guideline? -- James26 (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG includes, "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it, and she is affiliated with the university she attended and graduated from. This guideline also includes in footnote 5, Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability, and the Belmont sources are interview-based and seem to promote her and the university, which also seems to weigh against support for notability per WP:NOT policy, which excludes WP:PROMO. Beccaynr (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly wish I'd spoken to you earlier. I appreciate the hard work you put into your own searches and explanation. The article was written in good faith, like my others. But I know that the decision on what to do with it is out of my hands. For the time being, I'm going to try keeping her images on Commons and see if I can find more secondary sourcing to improve the page either now or in the future. -- James26 (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
images will likely get deleted if they aren't used in an article. If she's not a notable individual, it's a lady in a blue dress, we have plenty of those in photos already. Oaktree b (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User that "created" the photo used in the article (and another one), uploaded them, but one is likely a copyvio, so I'd be cautious. Oaktree b (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

". . .it's a lady in a blue dress, we have plenty of those in photos already."

This part actually made me chuckle. :) -- James26 (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

oh I've nominated photos for deletion, you'd be amazed what people upload... Oaktree b (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the article is being copied to another prominent site. No idea if either of the images will be transfered. Someone might write another article about her here if she gets enough coverage in secondary sources, but, like you said, I imagine that the images will be removed from Commons in the meanwhile. -- James26 (talk) 03:26, 16 August 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.