|
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
@ Paul Benjamin Austin: expressed concerns at the Editor assistance page about the sourcing and notability of this former child actress. There is currently one reference to the Colorado Springs Independent, which probably counts as a reliable source. It is, however, a mere parenthetical sentence fragment that reads: "a year older than Savannah Smiles star Bridgette Andersen, who overdosed on heroin in 1997". Most searches turn up general celebrity sites like IMDB and Find-a-Grave and the like. There are also some biographies on sites of questionable RS status, including Movie Pilot and Daily Hatch. Her WP:GNG notability is questionable. I don't see any evidence of PBA's claim of "...her internet cult following" in these searches, either. The latter would be a qualifying claim under WP:NACTOR#2 so I'm bringing the issue here before nominating for articles for deletion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
...a large fan base or a significant "cult" following..., however. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I have done an AfD but had to do it manually as Twinkle didn't want to play today so hopefully I've done all the steps correctly. It hasn't been PROD'd previously but I thought an AfD was a better route to try. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I've taken all the reliable sources that were in the article, and wrote as much of an article as could be written with the information in them ( the previous version has a lot of supposition and unsupported claims). I plan to incrementally expand the article as best I can. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to ask! — fourthords | =Λ= | 18:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
When I re-wrote this article ( see above), I removed File:Bridgette Andersen.jpg from the article. Aspects ( talk · contribs) has replaced the file saying, "rv unexplained image deletion". I didn't explicitly speak to the removal (not deletion) of this image, because its presence was itself originally unexplained. According to the FDP, the image's purpose here is "the person in the image is dead and no free images exist". Not only is that not a purpose, but it certainly doesn't meet the non-free content (NFC) criterion. In fact, that's why I didn't place any non-free content in the article: nothing in the prose requires NFC to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, [nor would] its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." ( WP:NFCC#8)
I've undone Aspects' edit IAW the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and invite them to discuss here. — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I suppose your interpretation is that my reconstitution of the article with reliable-sourcing is the original bold action, and your replacement of the NFC is the reversion. I don't intend to edit war on that point, I just didn't foresee it. — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
The image passses all points of WP:NFCC including #1 since Andersen has been dead for 21 years and the image has been in the article for five years, making it unlikely that a free image could be found.WP:NFCC#1 doesn't need that NFC be unlikely, but that it is unequivocably unavailable and uncreatable. Furthermore, #1 says such NFC can only be used if it "would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." File:Bridgette Andersen.jpg is serving no encyclopedic purpose.
The image passes #8 since its use is in identification of a deceased individual and its inclusion increases the reader's understanding of Andersen and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
There's nothing encyclopedic about Andersen that requires this NFC to understand. If you remove it, and read the article, you understand everything equally. There's nothing written in the article about Andersen's physical appearance as committed to the film Savannah Smiles; which prose becomes less understandable without seeing that image?
There does not need to be critical commentary of the image…
I don't think I said anything about "critical commentary".
…since it is being used as identification of a deceased individual in their article.
Is identifying the subject of an article, outside
the context of an object, style, or behavior that is a subject of discussion in the article, an exception to the
non-free content criteria?
Since there is an ongoing discussion…
It was 11.72 silent days between
my reply to you and
my removal (not deletion) of the NFC. Is that "an ongoing discussion"? —
fourthords |
=Λ= |
21:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Non-free content is a content guideline that says 'All non-free images must meet each non-free content criterion; failure to meet those overrides any acceptable allowance here.'"The image should stay" if it has an encyclopedic purpose ( WP:NFCC#1) and the article is otherwise less-understandable without it ( WP:NFCC#8). Do you have any sources for the article which discuss Andersen's appearance from Savannah Smiles such that NFC is necessary to understand it? — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Aspects only consents to discuss this issue when I remove the NFC in question, though not in response to my replies here otherwise. Aspects is nonetheless eager to revert my edits ( [1], [2], & [3]) within 8.381, 0.089, and 0.484 days of my making them, respectively. Furthermore, in my efforts to understand why this NFC may remain, I've asked them three questions to which I've received no answers. As Aspects has yet to reply again in the ten days since I last replied to them, I pose these questions to any other interested editor:
My thanks to anybody who has the time to take up Aspects' cause on their behalf. — fourthords | =Λ= | 15:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Twofingered Typist ( talk · contribs) started a discussion about these edits here on my talk page. Just a heads-up. — fourthords | =Λ= | 23:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
... uploaded several clips of her work to You Tube: https://www.youtube.com/user/bridgetteandersennet Paul Benjamin Austin ( talk) 04:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Fourthords: What is it you think I added that was unverified? I'm clearly not of the 'cult of Andersen'; I merely added (AND SOURCED!) information from her obituary (a published one, no less). Is your issue the fact that I'm at a McDonalds and not signed in? Because I have no interest in 'vetting' a lot of this (and I agree, a lot of it looks ridiculous) -- but I did note that her absolute date and place of birth and death were in an actual obit somewhere (assumingly placed by her family). Is this considered 'unvetted'? If so, I insist that my dog, which I had in the 1980s, is still alive and living under an assumed name in Massapequah. If I got the sourcing wrong, let me know. But as far as I know the facts were accurate. I'm not sitting there removing anything or adding spam. Thanks. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.200.24 ( talk • contribs) 02:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
What is it you think I added that was unverified?Somebody editing from your IP address made these edits. That person only added dates, not sources therefor. — fourthords | =Λ= | 04:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
fourthords "child model" is a unisex term which is why i added "female" in front of it. It's why we use "child actress" for Bridgette rather than "child actor" (plus, in the eighties, when she was active, most sources and official Hollywood/TV organisations would have called her a child actress, not a child actor). PAustin4thApril1980 ( talk) 19:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
My apologies to
HappinessIsAChoice (
talk ·
contribs).
Too Much (film) redirects to
Wish You Were Here (1987 film), and at
our disambiguation page for "Too Much", it says, Alternate title for the 1987 film
Wish You Were Here
. I must've taken that for gospel and linked duly, but was—of course—wrong in doing so. These need to be fixed, but that's not an excuse for my oversight.
I've made a minor edit just to introduce a
red link and remove a nugget that (I've very much confirmed, this time) is not in it accompanying source. Again, my apologies. —
Fourthords |
=Λ= |
19:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
The article currently states that Andersen "died of an opioid overdose in 1997, on Santa Monica Boulevard". The source is an interview with Amber Tamblyn about a book of poetry featuring Andersen. Tamblyn says "Bridgette had a hard time getting work later in her teens and died of a drug overdose on Santa Monica Blvd at the age of 21". According to the bio on Find A Grave,
According to reports, sometime during the week of May 12, 1997, Bridgette overdosed on a combination of alcohol and heroin. A friend was present at the time and called for an ambulance. She was taken to Queen of Angels hospital in Hollywood and placed on life support. On May 18, 1997, Bridgette was declared brain dead and taken off life support.
I'm not suggesting that we use Find A Grave as a reference, but there's enough there to make me think that Tamblyn's statement should not be taken literally. Even if it were literally true, I see no need to include that Andersen died "on Santa Monica Boulevard". It would be enough to say "in Los Angeles" or "in California". Mo Billings ( talk) 22:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Andersen died of an opioid overdose in 1997,[5] in Los Angeles County, California,[6] at the age of 21.[7]However, if the argument is that Paper or Amber Tamblyn isn't reliable in this instance, then we need to entirely remove the place-of-death from the prose and infobox, and the two categories would need to be elevated to simply accidental deaths and drug-related deaths. Does that make sense? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
On 30 April 2022 at 01:59 UTC,
Nikkimaria (
talk ·
contribs) removed from the infobox (a) the |death_place=
line breaks, and (b) the |death_cause=
parameter entirely,
saying only see
template doc
. For the former, I have to assume they are referring to
Template:Infobox person/doc#Inline lists which says, "
Do not use <br />
markup to create fake lists, as in: Item one<br />item two<br />item three
." The HTML tag wasn't used to create a list, but to simply improve the rendered spacing of infobox variables. I've been assured previously that this usage isn't in contravention of the MOS's accessibility concerns as linked. —
Fourthords |
=Λ= |
18:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
|death_cause=
replacement; that was unintentional.As for the template itself: I not only lack the foggiest idea how to edit templates, I
am still waiting for the first reply to
my last (misspelled) inquiry at {{
infobox person}}. I furthermore don't know whether this is a concern only here or systematically. —
Fourthords |
=Λ= |
13:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
|
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
@ Paul Benjamin Austin: expressed concerns at the Editor assistance page about the sourcing and notability of this former child actress. There is currently one reference to the Colorado Springs Independent, which probably counts as a reliable source. It is, however, a mere parenthetical sentence fragment that reads: "a year older than Savannah Smiles star Bridgette Andersen, who overdosed on heroin in 1997". Most searches turn up general celebrity sites like IMDB and Find-a-Grave and the like. There are also some biographies on sites of questionable RS status, including Movie Pilot and Daily Hatch. Her WP:GNG notability is questionable. I don't see any evidence of PBA's claim of "...her internet cult following" in these searches, either. The latter would be a qualifying claim under WP:NACTOR#2 so I'm bringing the issue here before nominating for articles for deletion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
...a large fan base or a significant "cult" following..., however. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I have done an AfD but had to do it manually as Twinkle didn't want to play today so hopefully I've done all the steps correctly. It hasn't been PROD'd previously but I thought an AfD was a better route to try. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I've taken all the reliable sources that were in the article, and wrote as much of an article as could be written with the information in them ( the previous version has a lot of supposition and unsupported claims). I plan to incrementally expand the article as best I can. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to ask! — fourthords | =Λ= | 18:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
When I re-wrote this article ( see above), I removed File:Bridgette Andersen.jpg from the article. Aspects ( talk · contribs) has replaced the file saying, "rv unexplained image deletion". I didn't explicitly speak to the removal (not deletion) of this image, because its presence was itself originally unexplained. According to the FDP, the image's purpose here is "the person in the image is dead and no free images exist". Not only is that not a purpose, but it certainly doesn't meet the non-free content (NFC) criterion. In fact, that's why I didn't place any non-free content in the article: nothing in the prose requires NFC to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, [nor would] its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." ( WP:NFCC#8)
I've undone Aspects' edit IAW the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and invite them to discuss here. — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I suppose your interpretation is that my reconstitution of the article with reliable-sourcing is the original bold action, and your replacement of the NFC is the reversion. I don't intend to edit war on that point, I just didn't foresee it. — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
The image passses all points of WP:NFCC including #1 since Andersen has been dead for 21 years and the image has been in the article for five years, making it unlikely that a free image could be found.WP:NFCC#1 doesn't need that NFC be unlikely, but that it is unequivocably unavailable and uncreatable. Furthermore, #1 says such NFC can only be used if it "would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." File:Bridgette Andersen.jpg is serving no encyclopedic purpose.
The image passes #8 since its use is in identification of a deceased individual and its inclusion increases the reader's understanding of Andersen and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
There's nothing encyclopedic about Andersen that requires this NFC to understand. If you remove it, and read the article, you understand everything equally. There's nothing written in the article about Andersen's physical appearance as committed to the film Savannah Smiles; which prose becomes less understandable without seeing that image?
There does not need to be critical commentary of the image…
I don't think I said anything about "critical commentary".
…since it is being used as identification of a deceased individual in their article.
Is identifying the subject of an article, outside
the context of an object, style, or behavior that is a subject of discussion in the article, an exception to the
non-free content criteria?
Since there is an ongoing discussion…
It was 11.72 silent days between
my reply to you and
my removal (not deletion) of the NFC. Is that "an ongoing discussion"? —
fourthords |
=Λ= |
21:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Non-free content is a content guideline that says 'All non-free images must meet each non-free content criterion; failure to meet those overrides any acceptable allowance here.'"The image should stay" if it has an encyclopedic purpose ( WP:NFCC#1) and the article is otherwise less-understandable without it ( WP:NFCC#8). Do you have any sources for the article which discuss Andersen's appearance from Savannah Smiles such that NFC is necessary to understand it? — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Aspects only consents to discuss this issue when I remove the NFC in question, though not in response to my replies here otherwise. Aspects is nonetheless eager to revert my edits ( [1], [2], & [3]) within 8.381, 0.089, and 0.484 days of my making them, respectively. Furthermore, in my efforts to understand why this NFC may remain, I've asked them three questions to which I've received no answers. As Aspects has yet to reply again in the ten days since I last replied to them, I pose these questions to any other interested editor:
My thanks to anybody who has the time to take up Aspects' cause on their behalf. — fourthords | =Λ= | 15:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Twofingered Typist ( talk · contribs) started a discussion about these edits here on my talk page. Just a heads-up. — fourthords | =Λ= | 23:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
... uploaded several clips of her work to You Tube: https://www.youtube.com/user/bridgetteandersennet Paul Benjamin Austin ( talk) 04:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Fourthords: What is it you think I added that was unverified? I'm clearly not of the 'cult of Andersen'; I merely added (AND SOURCED!) information from her obituary (a published one, no less). Is your issue the fact that I'm at a McDonalds and not signed in? Because I have no interest in 'vetting' a lot of this (and I agree, a lot of it looks ridiculous) -- but I did note that her absolute date and place of birth and death were in an actual obit somewhere (assumingly placed by her family). Is this considered 'unvetted'? If so, I insist that my dog, which I had in the 1980s, is still alive and living under an assumed name in Massapequah. If I got the sourcing wrong, let me know. But as far as I know the facts were accurate. I'm not sitting there removing anything or adding spam. Thanks. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.200.24 ( talk • contribs) 02:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
What is it you think I added that was unverified?Somebody editing from your IP address made these edits. That person only added dates, not sources therefor. — fourthords | =Λ= | 04:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
fourthords "child model" is a unisex term which is why i added "female" in front of it. It's why we use "child actress" for Bridgette rather than "child actor" (plus, in the eighties, when she was active, most sources and official Hollywood/TV organisations would have called her a child actress, not a child actor). PAustin4thApril1980 ( talk) 19:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
My apologies to
HappinessIsAChoice (
talk ·
contribs).
Too Much (film) redirects to
Wish You Were Here (1987 film), and at
our disambiguation page for "Too Much", it says, Alternate title for the 1987 film
Wish You Were Here
. I must've taken that for gospel and linked duly, but was—of course—wrong in doing so. These need to be fixed, but that's not an excuse for my oversight.
I've made a minor edit just to introduce a
red link and remove a nugget that (I've very much confirmed, this time) is not in it accompanying source. Again, my apologies. —
Fourthords |
=Λ= |
19:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
The article currently states that Andersen "died of an opioid overdose in 1997, on Santa Monica Boulevard". The source is an interview with Amber Tamblyn about a book of poetry featuring Andersen. Tamblyn says "Bridgette had a hard time getting work later in her teens and died of a drug overdose on Santa Monica Blvd at the age of 21". According to the bio on Find A Grave,
According to reports, sometime during the week of May 12, 1997, Bridgette overdosed on a combination of alcohol and heroin. A friend was present at the time and called for an ambulance. She was taken to Queen of Angels hospital in Hollywood and placed on life support. On May 18, 1997, Bridgette was declared brain dead and taken off life support.
I'm not suggesting that we use Find A Grave as a reference, but there's enough there to make me think that Tamblyn's statement should not be taken literally. Even if it were literally true, I see no need to include that Andersen died "on Santa Monica Boulevard". It would be enough to say "in Los Angeles" or "in California". Mo Billings ( talk) 22:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Andersen died of an opioid overdose in 1997,[5] in Los Angeles County, California,[6] at the age of 21.[7]However, if the argument is that Paper or Amber Tamblyn isn't reliable in this instance, then we need to entirely remove the place-of-death from the prose and infobox, and the two categories would need to be elevated to simply accidental deaths and drug-related deaths. Does that make sense? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
On 30 April 2022 at 01:59 UTC,
Nikkimaria (
talk ·
contribs) removed from the infobox (a) the |death_place=
line breaks, and (b) the |death_cause=
parameter entirely,
saying only see
template doc
. For the former, I have to assume they are referring to
Template:Infobox person/doc#Inline lists which says, "
Do not use <br />
markup to create fake lists, as in: Item one<br />item two<br />item three
." The HTML tag wasn't used to create a list, but to simply improve the rendered spacing of infobox variables. I've been assured previously that this usage isn't in contravention of the MOS's accessibility concerns as linked. —
Fourthords |
=Λ= |
18:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
|death_cause=
replacement; that was unintentional.As for the template itself: I not only lack the foggiest idea how to edit templates, I
am still waiting for the first reply to
my last (misspelled) inquiry at {{
infobox person}}. I furthermore don't know whether this is a concern only here or systematically. —
Fourthords |
=Λ= |
13:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)