Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Rich (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Rich

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

Unclear if this should have passed the first nomination, which was poorly attended. Article has been under promotional pressure for a long time and was recently at ANI for this. Not worth our effort to maintain this article in light of the lack of substantial coverage/marginal-at-best notability Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC) M[reply]

Comment: Just a note that I had tried to find sources out there for this article. The original AfD listed four articles that apparently showed that the person met GNG. However, three of those are now dead. I have asked Cunard if they are able to find them again so I can at least verify some of the information in the article. Right now it looks like a WP:DEL7 situation but I want to reserve judgement in the hopes that Cunard can pull through with the info. --Majora (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've reviewed the sources in the first AfD discussion, plus those in the article itself. The idea that the subject meets GNG, or WP:AUTHOR, is laughable. This is superficial press-release coverage. While we're at it, Sweethearts (book) needs to go too, methinks, but as before I'll wait for a second person to agree with me before nominating. Don't forget all the redirects which are the remnants of what used to be a substantial walled garden. E Eng 21:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't nominate the book for deletion as Kirkus saw fit to review it. Kirkus is solid. Binksternet (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkus is no longer solid. They review self-published books if the author pays them. It was OK back in 1994, but ohey always published only brief reviews, and i've commented further at the AfD for the book. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG as I mentioned at the other AfD, please provide your links for this. Otherwise, I think we're talking about two different services, Kirkus and Kirkus Indie. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we even discussing this here? The review is about the book, not Sharon Rich. And as regards the book, it's a superficial 12-sentence "review". By these low standards every book mentioned anywhere is notable. E Eng 22:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, a 12 sentence review is not superficial, nor is it just a mention, this is - "so and so has written a book about stuff, it is good/bad." Also, "why are we even discussing this (a book review(s)) here?", take a look at no. 3 of WP:NAUTHOR which talks of a significant/well known work/body of work that has reviews. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my God. I remember now why I stay away from AfD. DGG, I'm leaving this up to you. Life's too short. E Eng 01:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find any news or commentary about Rich in reliable sources beyond the NYT piece. There's a different Sharon J. Rich who has written some scholarly articles[1] and a Sharon Rich who is a financial planner[2][3][4][5][6][7] and a Sharon Rich who is a community activist in upstate New York[8][9][10] and a Sharon Rich who works public relations for Hennessey's Tavern in Southern California[11] but none of these are the author of the Sweethearts book. Binksternet (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In light of new sources, especially the LA Times pieces from '74 and '95, I am changing my !vote. Binksternet (talk) 08:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note that Sharon Rich's research is cited by other authors writing about the same topic, as I noted in the book AfD here. Rich is not some unknown person striving for importance. Her work significantly changed the subject of the Eddy and MacDonald biographies. Subsequent authors writing about the topic must define themselves relative to the stance taken by Rich. Binksternet (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ^{changed because of new sources added 22:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)} ~~Delete & redirect~~ - to Sweethearts (book). ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)^{strike 04:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

Don't waste your time. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweethearts (book). E Eng 02:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments for D are compelling. My thoughts from the beginning were to merge the book and author. Now I'm struggling over fancruft vs historic value, which in this particular instance is notable. Perhaps NEXIST also applies here? Jytdog's point about promotion is certainly worthy of concern - there's no denying promotion is a problem on WP, especially where books, movies, and music are concerned - but then WP:AUTHOR #3 comes to mind.

^{Atsme📞📧} 11:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please see the references I added to the article. She was profiled first in the 70s for her first book, then later for her work on Sweethearts, which is notable, too. She has been covered in NY Times, LA Times and other reliable sources. Ping @Atsme, EEng, and Binksternet: to see what you think of the new sources. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I watched those changes; they are here. This is mostly fancruft kind of stuff, like the award from the "Entertainment Book Club" whatever that is. She is a super-fan for sure. Jytdog (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. E Eng 22:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Delete to punish some content contributors for contributing the wrong content" is not one of our pillars. Other issues were resolved at the previous AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about punishing anyone. It is about whether the subject is important enough for the volunteer community to keep putting effort into maintaining neutrality in the face of relentless promotional pressure. In my view, it isn't. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One possibly significant book is not enough to justify two articles--trying to do that is promotional. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and , Megalibrarygirl, Kirkus and KirkusIndie are two halves of the same company. See their website. Such an intimate connection is in my opinion enough to make the entire company unreliable. DGG ( talk ) 23:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at the low end of notability, but enough to keep this article, especially if the book details are merged here. Possibly disambiguate, as there's no clear case that this is the most notable Sharon Rich; however I'm not sure if any of the other Sharon Rich's have enough content to justify an article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Power-enwiki, and believe merging will resolve the N issues while maintaining the historic significance of the book and the author's notability. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of additional sourcing by Megalibrarygirl; and especially if the book details are merged to this biog per Power~enwiki. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Anybody talking about a Wikipedia article as "this blog" is incompetent to be !voting in an AfD. For pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)~~ (i need glasses; my apologies Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Pssst...Jytdog - that's BIOG as in biography...not blog. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Additional material establishes notability. The article is a little light, but I must point out that Kirkus Reviews are HIGHLY notable and well worth including here. Montanabw^(talk) 19:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The content added by Megalibrary girl was crap (again what is the "entertainment book club"?) and the kirkus review is about the book; N is not inherited.

In response to your question (and please forgive me for using a blog but it explains it without me having to search further) see this. One could say it's "historic"? Goshes...to think the 70s is now historic. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, not a really noteworthy award. fancruft. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article in its current state passes the basic editorial requirements for inclusion. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient coverage as shown by the additions to the article since it was nominated. gongshow talk 08:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As I said at the top I was reserving judgement to see if someone could find what I could not. Apparently I need to improve my searching abilities as they were severely lacking in this case. Now that there are good sources to verify content my original issues has been resolved. A merge of her book into this article would probably be a good idea and I'm going to say as much at the other AfD. --Majora (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Turner, Patricia C. (1993-10-18). "Hearing Their Love Call". The Star-Ledger. Archived from the original on 2015-01-07. Retrieved 2015-01-07.
  The article notes:
2. Yampert, Rick de (2004-05-21). "Author claims to reveal 'Hollywood's biggest cover-up'". The Daytona Beach News-Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-01-07. Retrieved 2015-01-07.
  The article notes:
3. Bawden, Jim (1996-05-17). "Screen lovebirds took roles to heart". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2015-01-07. Retrieved 2015-01-07.
  The article notes:
4. Brozan, Nadine (1995-02-17). "Chronicle". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2015-01-07. Retrieved 2015-01-07.
  The article notes:
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sharon Rich to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2017 (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.