Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juliet O'Hara


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Juliet O'Hara

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

There is little of value here. The references are mostly just episodes for the fictional biography and say nothing about any meaningful analysis or reception of the character. The main Psych article is almost undoubtedly sufficient for coverage. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Maxx-♥  talk and coffee ☕ 13:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Question The nomination is based on the current state of the article, which according to WP:NEXIST is not the decisive factor. Was the required WP:BEFORE search done? As there are a number of hits in suggested Google Books and Google Scholar searches, could there please be some commentary why these should not amount to sufficient coverage for a stand-alone article? Daranios (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the guideline. I almost doubt that it's necessary to justify denying the inclusion of these hits, since a fairly large portion of the first page are novel adaptations. The USA Network book seems to be a copy-paste job of Wikipedia, so that is obviously not allowed. The few books that mention the actual character are mostly reserved to passing mentions or don't really discuss the character in a meaningful way outside of their role in the show. Compare this to the Gus (Psych) article, where when I did search for material on the character, there were articles that mentioned him and took him out of the scope of just the television series, such as character identity and falling outside of the tropes commonly found in sidekicks of detective fiction.
 * Google Scholar paints a similar picture, with Amino Apps being a hit for some reason. The "Mystifying Rationale of Psychic Detection" largely deals with the two main characters — Shawn Spencer and Burton Guster. The same guideline you cited is precisely why I haven't nominated these two main characters to be deleted. However, the Shawn Spencer article is in a bad state. I do know that it can be fixed at least. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 16:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Always better to hear the analysis than be left in the dark. Daranios (talk) 10:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:GNG
 * Loads of SIGCOV in Psych and Philosophy: Some Dark Juju-Magumbo
 * SIGCOV in Television's Female Spies and Crimefighters
 * A bit in Cable Guys: Television and Masculinities in the 21st Century
 * IGN has SIGCOV across many episode reviews, including e.g.
 * SIGCOV across several reviews in Den of Geek. This review has a choice quote about how the character is used to speak to a real-life actor who is recovering from a stroke . Den of Geek also has some other usable reviews, e.g.
 * &mdash;siro&chi;o 16:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Robert Arp's Psych and Philosophy is the closest one to being any meaningful, significant coverage. As for the others, including the reviews, they really don't say much outside of her role in the show/episode/movie plot. Television's Female Spies doesn't elaborate much more than the relationship and her willingness to believe Shawn.
 * The Cable Guys section rarely mentions Juliet. If anything, it's a good source for Shawn Spencer's page or Gus's page. Even the "Very Juliet Episode" review is mostly confined to the plot only to discuss that, despite the name, "As usual, Shawn and Gus got the most screen-time". So, I really don't think there's a strong reason to keep. I don't think Arp's book alone is sufficient. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 17:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. I would also argue that the Psych and Philosophy  does not confer notability. -- Mike 🗩 19:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, Psych and Philosophy in total has many pages worth of secondary analysis of the character throughout the book, discussing the character in context of multiple philosophical and sociological concepts, and occasionally comparing the use of the character to other media. The coverage also comes from multiple authors who have each contributed chapters to the book. The individual essay "The Amazing Psych-Man Versus the Sexist Mentalist" by Mona Rocha alone has several pages of secondary analysis of the character, and other essays have SIGCOV on their own as well. &mdash;siro&chi;o 23:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe the secondary sources which have been listed collectively allow to write an article which fullfills WP:WHYN, so I see no benefit for the users of Wikipedia in deleting this article. Daranios (talk) 10:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Almost none of the coverage in the listed sources are significant. The sum of plot recaps does not make something notable. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am satisfied with the fact, that basically a paragraph or more of commentary could be written from the contents of Psych and Philosophy (I cannot see all of it), supplemented by short additions (like "Juliet O'Hara is an interesting" but also "a peripheral character", as well as the significance/effect of the Shawn/Juliet relationship being very slow) + providing referenced plot summary + appearance data from other sources, therefore taken together fullfilling the requirements of both WP:WHYN and WP:ALLPLOT. Daranios (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is just combining the sum of trivial mentions. 7 words isn't much or enough to justify keeping it. "Juliet is interesting". That says nothing of real value. Compared to the material on Shawn and Gus, who have been analyzed in the greater scope of detective fiction, tropes, and design, it just feels like there is very little on this character that has any weight. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 16:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "7 words isn't much or enough to justify keeping it." No, it isn't. It's the pages dealing with Juliet in Psych and Philosophy, somewhat supplemented by the other sources. And I readily believe that there is significantly less material than on Shawn and Gus. But more than the paragraph that the characters without their own articles on List of Psych characters have, and more than the usual threshhold between a stub and an article, which is the critereon for a stand-alone article applied by WP:MERGEREASON #3. And even if it were just on the order of the other characters on that list, outright deletion would make little sense: It would leave an empty section there, while more minor characters had their own paragraph. In that case a merger there would be the way to go. Daranios (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Using the sources above, I've overhauled the article, adding a section which is now the bulk of the article.  &mdash;siro&chi;o 19:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per sources and edits made by Siroxo. Pokelego999 (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.