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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Verita Bouvaire-Thompson

Verita Bouvaire-Thompson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Only claim to fame is that she was the mistress to someone famous. Other than that, absolutely nothing. 1 mention on News, zero on Newspapers, other than her own book, absolutely nada on books, shockingly absolutely nothing on Scholar, only 3 hits to her obit on Highbeam. I would have prodded, but this article's creation was in response to removing this person from a "notable person" list (you can see a brief discussion here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:BIO. Notability is not inherited, and there's just nothing else to show her notability. I won't even suggest that this could be redirected to Humphrey Bogart since even the claim that she was Bogart's mistress is questionable. Bogart never admitted to it, his Wikipedia article does not mention her, and the issue has never been raised on the article's talk page. She claimed to have been his mistress in her autobiography, published 25 years after his death. The only sources in the article are the subject's book and three obits. The book fails WP:INDEPENDENT as WP:SELFPUBLISH, and the obits are likely largely based on the autobiography. Meters ( talk) 02:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ssт✈ ^(discuss) 02:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ssт✈ ^(discuss) 02:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Nothing to even suggest better minimal notability. 03:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister ( talk • contribs)
• 'KEEP I am just getting started, but because I don’t want this article to disappear before I can post anything, I think a quick look at the various mistress categories already on wikipedia will reveal that in fact being the mistress of royalty, band Bogart was Hollywood royalty is notable enough for wikipedia.

Carptrash ( talk) 18:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Here are at least some of the categories of mistressess that already exist on wikipedia. The women and men involved can't all be more "notable' than Thompson.

Carptrash ( talk) 19:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

This can be drafted and userfied to your userspace if needed. SwisterTwister talk 18:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep No compliance with WP:Before. Clearly notable. If Carptrash says it is worth his time and effort, it is notable enough for Wikipedia and will be developed in due course. Give it a rest. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 19:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Thanks for AGF... complete compliance with BEFORE, as noted in the nomination - very little about her on the search engines. Only claim to fame is the unverified self-claimant of her relationship to Bogart. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment – @ Carptrash: I removed the main namespace categories from this discussion page that you posted, because they are for articles, but are not appropriate for Wikipedia namespace in the manner they were posted. To post categories here, they need to be formatted as [[:Category:Foo]], with a colon before the word "Category", so this discussion is not listed on the respective category pages for articles. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Okay @ Northamerica1000: , I have them in the text now, thanks for keeping this . . ....legal. Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 19:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment I agree that WP:Before has clearly been followed. Disagreeing an whether something is notable does not mean that the procedure has not been followed. No independent, reliable sources have been found to show notability, or even to confirm the claim that she was Bogart's mistress. And Carptrash, there's a big difference between Royalty and "Hollywood" Royalty. You need to show that Thompson is notable in her own right, rather than simply as someone's mistress. Bogart is notable, his hairdresser and possible mistress appears not to be. Meters ( talk) 19:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment – See this custom search, which provides sources. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

– This custom search provided results from Google Newspapers. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

North America Thank you for posting the multiple sources. Does this mean "Keep" or "Delete"? 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 20:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment I apologize if you think there was a breach of WP:AGF. I am happy to credit that you may have tried to comply with WP:Before; but you did it poorly. You too could have clicked on "High Beam" and found the sources that are now in the article, and put them there. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 19:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

A few more obituaries calling her the "reputed" mistress of Bogart doesn't help. We already have several. They don't show notability, and I doubt they are independent of the subject's autobiography. Meters ( talk) 20:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

If I am reading you right, you say she wrote her own obituary!? That would be notable in and of itself! In any event, the sources posted by North America spike your concern. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 20:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I wrote that the obits are likely not independent of her autobiography. The distinction is clear. All the ones I looked at appeared to use the autobiography as a source. Meters ( talk) 21:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

There's not much in the new list of possible refs. Two of them are blogs, the Washington post ref is merely a passing reference in a society page article, and the rest seem to be discussing a new book that mentions Bogart and Thompson, but apparently tiptoes around the issue. The NY Post says "Verita Thompson claims she had a longtime affair" with Bogart, and The Daily Mail makes it even clearer with "He [the book's author]repeats, cautiously, the ‘unverified account’ of the star’s hairdresser, Verita Thompson, who claimed to have had a 13-year affair with" Bogart. Hardly convincing, and again, clearly not WP:INDEPENDENT of the WP:SELFPUBLISHed autobiography. I'm not going to bother translating the 2 foreign sources. Meters ( talk) 21:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• KEEP - per reasoning of Carptrash, a quick look at the various mistress categories already on wikipedia will reveal that in fact being the mistress of royalty, band Bogart was Hollywood royalty is notable enough for wikipedia. I have come across various obituaries on her that talk of this Bogart relationship and I can't believe that all these journalists got together in a conspiracy to make up the story. My experience in writing many DYK biographies sees this article as being capable of being developed into an "interesting" biography that many would like to read about.-- Doug Coldwell ( talk) 19:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Thanks Northamerica1000 for the formatting fix, and for the links to the custom searches. After reviewing, there's really nothing there to show this woman passes WP:GNG. On the news search there are 6 very brief mentions of this woman, along with 2 blog entries. The Newspapers one is a bit more, as it has two nice reviews of her book, Bogie and Me, but those don't equate into her even passing WP:NAUTHOR, and the other 4 are again merely passing mentions. A search for her book, also turns up a dearth of in-depth coverage. The best of the results was a mention in Stefan Kanfer's bio of Bogart, Tough Without a Gun, one of the better bios of the star (neither of which has their own article, btw), in which this individual is described as a "tireless self-promoter". If anything, these additional searches only served to confirm the results of my earlier searches. BTW, WP:OSE is not a valid argument in this instance, and the only other keep vote doesn't offer any additional sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment This person easily passed WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 21:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• KEEP - I'm uncomfortable with the quickness to delete new articles. This had been posted barely 20 minutes before it was tagged to be deleted. And it's been expanded since then. Before hackles get raised and heels get dug in, let's allow time for the article to be improved. == BoringHistoryGuy ( talk) 22:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Completely non-notable. Mistresses of senior royal figures are notable because said figures were politically important and their affairs were therefore significant within the history of their countries. Actors and their affairs are not, whether you want to call them Hollywood royalty or not. Just gossip column fodder. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply

When someone runs across Verita Bouvaire-Thompson in the gossip column and wonders who she was, I want wikipedia to have the answer. Also to claim, as you seem to do, that all mistresses were " politically important and their affairs were therefore significant" seems a bit of a stretch. Carptrash ( talk) 00:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I didn't claim that. But many are notable in that context, which is why we have articles on them. If they're not then no articles. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

For example, Casablanca (film) seems to have a longer article than the Battle of Hastings, which says something about the importance of the gossip column of the annals of history, at least on wikipedia. Carptrash ( talk) 00:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Not sure how that's in any way relevant. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Well it was an unsuccessful attempt to show that these days pop culture (70,000 hits) is more significant (measured by size of the article and number of hits) than history (60.000 hits). People want to know about this stuff Carptrash ( talk) 16:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep It's clear from the citations she passes GNG. It doesn't matter whether any of us think a Hollywood mistress should be notable, the fact is, she was newsworthy and therefore notable. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 01:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Megalibrarygirl. I do believe they've hit it that the issue here has more to do with the fact that this is about a hollywood mistress than anything else! -- MurderByDeletionism ^"bang!" 19:05, 17 December 2015 (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.