384:
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
Knowledge (XXG)'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 (
921:: A contributor who's enthusiastic about a subject, such as a fan of an actor, and acts accordingly in Knowledge (XXG), 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. -
846:#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.
903:
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
770:
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
791:
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
251:
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
383:
No, that's not how
Knowledge (XXG) 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
892:), 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
935:
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
333:), 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 (
900:—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).
220:
84:
804:
supposedly getting some time in the future their own
Knowledge (XXG) article, and thus justifying the claim about Mastrogiacomo having taken part in "multiple" notable films, that's just pure and unacceptable
272:
623:. 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
177:
872:. 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.
706:
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
Knowledge (XXG) but the reality is
79:
687:, 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
331:
214:
300:
904:
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.
889:—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
771:
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 "
296:
109:
124:
610:
notable films or TV shows? And, more importantly, where are her significant performances? I offer some forensics that cut through the unreasonable hype:
292:
650:
we read that Liotta's characters "ogles women — his mistresses, Janice (Gina
Mastrogiacomo) and Sandy (Debi Mazar)". That's all. And (e) in the
150:
145:
154:
529:. Please consider that I have improved the article by adding references, text, and copy editing after all of the above comments were made.
740:
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
877:
I disagree with The Gnome on two important points: her role in
Goodfellas appears to be significant and covered by reliable sources, and
636:
137:
1006:
973:
949:
930:
910:
855:
837:
765:
719:
586:
555:
538:
499:
454:
430:
397:
378:
358:
309:
284:
264:
64:
104:
97:
17:
255:
Still, deleting an article on an actress with an arguably recognizable name doesn't strike me as uncontroversial, so here we are.
235:
885:
is relevant, but reviews are generally reliable for the purposes of establishing notability). I'm still not convinced she meets
546:
There are multiple, reliable sources on the subject, including extensive, in-depth analysis and commentary on her performances.
202:
624:
881:
is not relevant here at all (that covers original research occuring on
Knowledge (XXG), and isn't about source reliability;
118:
114:
656:
566:
410:
334:
1023:
40:
659:, Mastrogiacomo only gets a name drop. That was actually her only passably significant appearance on TV or the movies.
181:
825:
479:
325:
196:
890:
812:
When one wants to look up obscure artists, Knowledge (XXG) should not be one's first choice. Knowledge (XXG) is an
366:
I don't know what you expect to find -- new articles written about a dead actress? Granted, she's not famous like
475:
945:
697:
450:
352:," emphasis added. I don't think single-episode appearances in Seinfeld, ER, or The X-Files hit "significant."
192:
882:
328:
511:. I added multiple critical reviews of her performances to the article. She was the lead female character in
141:
821:
632:
385:
242:
1019:
36:
741:
604:
significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions
806:
752:, there are enough critical reviews of both of those that we could have articles on them which pass
941:
926:
851:
833:
715:
551:
495:
446:
228:
990:
937:
886:
843:
753:
599:
508:
443:
341:
969:
864:"Denigration" seems a bit extreme; I don't think it's unreasonable to question the notability of
393:
280:
260:
133:
70:
467:
208:
515:, and she had a couple larger parts in television films in addition to her significant role in
761:
534:
93:
53:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1018:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
647:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1002:
442:: No independent notability - No significant role, No RS discussing her work, fails GNG and
986:
813:
736:(where she is the only leading actress among a cast otherwise made up of men). Her role in
463:
337:
372:
878:
793:
784:
252:
suggests. The article has already been through AFD in 2015, and the result was delete.
961:
922:
918:
847:
829:
711:
652:
547:
491:
474:
but personal predilections mean nothing in these matters. Knowledge (XXG) is neither a
367:
304:
817:
965:
389:
276:
256:
905:
897:
757:
683:
530:
353:
171:
998:
628:
462:
since subject quite evidently does not meet the requirements set down by either
619:
517:
321:
989:
given the improvements which have made to the article. I'm not so sure about
678:
670:
662:- She also appeared in an instantly forgettable role as a prostitute in one
602:
criterion #1, which was invoked above, states that the subject must've had
664:
577:
421:
787:
assessed as "mid-sized". Above, I went through the related sources on
896:
for someone to be notable without meeting criteria (see for instance
631:
simply identifies Mastrogiacomo in a photo caption. (b) Another CNN
744:. I should point out that while we currently lack articles on both
643:
we're informed she played her role "with real humanity". (d) In
483:
1014:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
569:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
413:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
993:—maybe yes, maybe no—but all in all, there's enough for a
273:
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions
85:
Articles for deletion/Gina Mastrogiacomo (2nd nomination)
732:, and has the leading female character role in the film
487:
370:, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't have an article.
167:
163:
159:
227:
635:
does not mention Mastrogiacomo at all. (c) From the
575:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
419:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
241:
320:: I mostly see her referenced in content covering
388:, specifically #8 in this case). Hope that helps
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1026:). No further edits should be made to this page.
291:Note: This discussion has been included in the
271:Note: This discussion has been included in the
701:, her first movie, does not even mention her.
521:. All of these performances were reviewed in
8:
125:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
336:). I think this is enough to say she fails
470:. As it happens, I've enjoyed her work in
290:
270:
674:episode, so irrelevant that not even the
668:episode; in another walk-through in an
80:Articles for deletion/Gina Mastrogiacomo
695:, while the Knowledge (XXG) article on
77:
603:
525:, and were likely reviewed elsewhere.
345:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
724:She has a major supporting role in
480:haphazard assortment of actor bios
350:notable films, television shows...
24:
985:: I think the subject gets up on
826:assortment of random information
295:lists for the following topics:
110:Introduction to deletion process
681:mentions her; and, if you saw
1:
346:has had significant roles in
65:04:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
1007:08:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
974:16:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
950:00:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
931:13:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
911:23:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
856:17:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
838:17:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
766:04:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
720:00:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
710:out there to support that. -
587:23:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
556:21:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
539:18:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
500:12:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
455:00:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
431:22:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
398:05:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
379:01:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
359:21:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
310:21:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
285:21:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
265:21:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
728:according to the review in
100:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1043:
917:Just one more remark, for
1016:Please do not modify it.
775:supporting role" in the
698:Harry and the Hendersons
32:Please do not modify it.
842:She very clearly meets
507:. Passes criteria 1 of
76:AfDs for this article:
870:Tall, Dark, and Deadly
798:Tall, Dark, and Deadly
746:Tall, Dark, and Deadly
726:Tall, Dark, and Deadly
182:edits since nomination
964:, for your analysis.
693:Tall, Dark and Deadly
330:, the book Made Men:
98:Articles for deletion
822:depository of record
794:made up by an editor
779:review. Her role in
796:. As to the movies
617:- She appeared in
606:. Which are these
134:Gina Mastrogiacomo
71:Gina Mastrogiacomo
589:
433:
312:
287:
115:Guide to deletion
105:How to contribute
1034:
908:
708:there is nothing
585:
574:
572:
570:
429:
418:
416:
414:
375:
356:
307:
293:deletion sorting
246:
245:
231:
175:
157:
95:
62:
34:
1042:
1041:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1024:deletion review
906:
818:goes by sources
792:words entirely
689:Motorcycle Gang
576:
565:
563:
420:
409:
407:
373:
354:
305:
188:
148:
132:
129:
92:
89:
74:
54:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1040:
1038:
1029:
1028:
1010:
1009:
979:
978:
977:
976:
958:
957:
956:
955:
954:
953:
952:
942:Deathlibrarian
933:
914:
913:
901:
883:WP:RSEDITORIAL
874:
873:
859:
858:
810:
704:
703:
702:
660:
653:New York Times
612:
611:
592:
591:
573:
559:
558:
541:
527:Note to closer
502:
457:
447:Deathlibrarian
436:
435:
417:
403:
402:
401:
400:
368:Robin Williams
361:
327:, ScreenRant:
314:
313:
288:
249:
248:
185:
128:
127:
122:
112:
107:
90:
88:
87:
82:
75:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1039:
1027:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1012:
1011:
1008:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
988:
984:
981:
980:
975:
971:
967:
963:
959:
951:
947:
943:
939:
934:
932:
928:
924:
920:
916:
915:
912:
909:
902:
899:
895:
891:
888:
884:
880:
876:
875:
871:
867:
866:Space Avenger
863:
862:
861:
860:
857:
853:
849:
845:
841:
840:
839:
835:
831:
827:
823:
820:. It's not a
819:
815:
814:encyclopaedia
811:
808:
803:
802:Space Avenger
799:
795:
790:
786:
782:
778:
774:
769:
768:
767:
763:
759:
755:
751:
750:Space Avenger
747:
743:
739:
735:
734:Space Avenger
731:
727:
723:
722:
721:
717:
713:
709:
705:
700:
699:
694:
690:
686:
685:
680:
677:
673:
672:
667:
666:
661:
658:
655:
654:
649:
646:
642:
638:
634:
630:
626:
622:
621:
616:
615:
614:
613:
609:
605:
601:
597:
594:
593:
590:
588:
584:
582:
581:
571:
568:
561:
560:
557:
553:
549:
545:
542:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
519:
514:
513:Space Avenger
510:
506:
503:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
458:
456:
452:
448:
445:
441:
438:
437:
434:
432:
428:
426:
425:
415:
412:
405:
404:
399:
395:
391:
387:
386:WP:DEL-REASON
382:
381:
380:
377:
376:
369:
365:
362:
360:
357:
351:
349:
343:
339:
335:
332:
329:
326:
323:
319:
316:
315:
311:
308:
302:
298:
294:
289:
286:
282:
278:
274:
269:
268:
267:
266:
262:
258:
253:
244:
240:
237:
234:
230:
226:
222:
219:
216:
213:
210:
207:
204:
201:
198:
194:
191:
190:Find sources:
186:
183:
179:
173:
169:
165:
161:
156:
152:
147:
143:
139:
135:
131:
130:
126:
123:
120:
116:
113:
111:
108:
106:
103:
102:
101:
99:
94:
86:
83:
81:
78:
72:
69:
67:
66:
63:
61:
60:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1015:
1013:
994:
982:
898:Peter Ostrum
893:
869:
865:
801:
797:
788:
780:
776:
772:
749:
745:
737:
733:
729:
725:
707:
696:
692:
688:
684:Jungle Fever
682:
675:
669:
663:
651:
644:
640:
618:
607:
595:
579:
578:
564:
562:
543:
526:
522:
516:
512:
504:
471:
459:
439:
423:
422:
408:
406:
371:
363:
347:
317:
254:
250:
238:
232:
224:
217:
211:
205:
199:
189:
91:
58:Arbitrarily0
57:
56:
55:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
960:Thank you,
807:speculation
742:WP:NACTRESS
645:The Decider
641:Screen Rant
629:Roger Ebert
215:free images
789:Goodfellas
783:no one in
781:Goodfellas
738:Goodfellas
620:Goodfellas
518:Goodfellas
488:that-a way
472:Goodfellas
374:DRosenbach
322:Goodfellas
1020:talk page
995:Weak Keep
991:WP:NACTOR
983:Weak Keep
962:The Gnome
938:WP:NACTOR
923:The Gnome
919:Banks Irk
887:WP:NACTOR
848:Banks Irk
844:WP:NACTOR
830:The Gnome
754:WP:SIGCOV
712:The Gnome
676:NYPD Blue
671:NYPD Blue
600:WP:NACTOR
548:Banks Irk
509:WP:NACTOR
492:The Gnome
476:directory
444:WP:NACTOR
342:WP:NACTOR
340:. As for
324:(Looper:
306:Spiderone
37:talk page
1022:or in a
966:CapnZapp
940:or GNG.
894:possible
665:Seinfeld
627:quoting
608:multiple
567:Relisted
468:WP:ACTOR
411:Relisted
390:CapnZapp
348:multiple
301:New York
277:CapnZapp
257:CapnZapp
178:View log
119:glossary
39:or in a
907:Dylnuge
785:sources
777:Variety
758:4meter4
756:. Best.
730:Variety
679:fansite
633:article
625:article
596:Comment
531:4meter4
523:Variety
355:Dylnuge
221:WP refs
209:scholar
151:protect
146:history
96:New to
999:Dflaw4
987:WP:GNG
824:or an
648:report
637:review
478:nor a
464:WP:GNG
460:Delete
440:Delete
338:WP:GNG
318:Delete
193:Google
155:delete
879:WP:OR
816:that
773:major
657:piece
297:Women
236:JSTOR
197:books
172:views
164:watch
160:links
16:<
1003:talk
970:talk
946:talk
927:talk
852:talk
834:talk
800:and
762:talk
748:and
716:talk
691:and
552:talk
544:Keep
535:talk
505:Keep
496:talk
484:IMDb
451:talk
394:talk
364:Keep
299:and
281:talk
261:talk
229:FENS
203:news
168:logs
142:talk
138:edit
868:or
828:. -
639:in
490:. -
486:is
482:.
466:or
344:, "
243:TWL
176:– (
1005:)
997:.
972:)
948:)
929:)
854:)
836:)
764:)
718:)
598::
583:iz
554:)
537:)
498:)
453:)
427:iz
396:)
303:.
283:)
275:.
263:)
223:)
180:|
170:|
166:|
162:|
158:|
153:|
149:|
144:|
140:|
52:.
1001:(
968:(
944:(
925:(
850:(
832:(
809:.
760:(
714:(
580:L
550:(
533:(
494:(
449:(
424:L
392:(
279:(
259:(
247:)
239:·
233:·
225:·
218:·
212:·
206:·
200:·
195:(
187:(
184:)
174:)
136:(
121:)
117:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.