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)

Sharon Rich
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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
 * 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cunard&diff=prev&oldid=807633828 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)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


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


 * 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 and a Sharon Rich who is a financial planner and a Sharon Rich who is a community activist in upstate New York and a Sharon Rich who works public relations for Hennessey's Tavern in Southern California but none of these are the author of the Sweethearts book. Binksternet (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Don't waste your time. Articles for deletion/Sweethearts (book).  E Eng  02:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 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. SMirC-what.svg Atsme 📞📧 11:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 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 to see what you think of the new sources. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Absolutely.  E Eng  22:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * and, , 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Keep because of additional sourcing by ; and especially if the book details are merged to this biog per . --Rosiestep (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 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))
 * Pssst...Jytdog - that's BIOG as in biography...not blog. Atsme 📞📧 19:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


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

 Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article notes: "Now, almost 60 years later, Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy are alive and vibrant, at least in the hearts of those who pay $40 a year to belong to the Mac/Eddy Club, which is based at 101 Cedar Lane, Teaneck. There are 2,800 of these people, according to Sharon Rich, the Teaneck resident whose home serves as headquarters even as she serves as president. Rich co-founded the organization in 1977 with Diane Goodrich of New York City. ... Rich, for instance, is 39 years old; the vice president of Mac/Eddy is 34 - 'youngsters,' she called them.  Rich's introduction to the subject is unusual.  Growing up in a suburb of Los Angeles, she and others from her high school honor society did volunteer work at the Motion Picture Home.  She was assigned to assist Jeanette MacDonald's older sister, Blossom Rock, in a play the home was putting on. Rock had suffered a stroke. 'We became friends and hit it off,' Rich said of Rock, a character actor from the 1930s under her stage name Marie Blake, and the grandmother to the Addams Family in the 1960s under her own name. ... Years later, Rich would complete a biography of the two movie idols, and the affair they had 'on and off for 30 years.'"</li> <li> The article notes: "Rich was a fledgling 16-year-old writer in her native Woodland Hills, in the Los Angeles area, when she met MacDonald's sister Blossom Rock, who had portrayed Grandmama in the TV show 'The Addams Family.' Rich had never heard of Jeanette MacDonald or Nelson Eddy. 'When I learned from Blossom there had been a romance between Jeanette and Nelson, it meant nothing to me,' Rich says. That is, until she 'started reading in the film history books that they hated each other off-screen. I asked Blossom, 'Why are you telling me one thing and the books say something else?' When she started telling me the story, I realized this is one of Hollywood's biggest cover-ups, and one of its most tragic cover-ups.' When Rich decided to plunge ahead and write a book about the affair, she met resistance. Eddy's widow, Ann, and MacDonald's widower, Gene Raymond, were still alive but wouldn't discuss the adulterous romance between their famous spouses. In fact, Rich says, Ann Eddy and Raymond 'went overboard trying to keep the story suppressed.' Was pursuing the book 'harsh on them?' Rich asks herself. 'I imagine so.' But, she adds, she knew 'the story was true' and 'they were public figures.' ...  'Sweethearts,' which was published in 1994 and updated for a new edition in 2001, includes 56 pages of documentation detailing Rich's sources, which included love letters, diaries, FBI records, personal interviews and unpublished memoirs. In the new edition's preface, Rich writes: 'There are many people who were friends and still vehemently deny any relationship - because Jeanette and/or Nelson themselves never spoke of it to them or denied it themselves.'"</li> <li> The article notes: "Rich is a New York writer who was editing an opera magazine when she get hooked on the 'MacEddy' movies. 'I became friends with Jeanette's sister, Blossom Rock, who told me about their clandestine love affair. Both of them had married other people and because it was the 1930s any scandal would have wrecked their careers. Jeanette's image was very much that of a lady. They went on loving each other to the day Jeanette died.' Rich was able to obtain letters Nelson had written Jeanette revealing all but says 'the reaction of some fans was furious. The British chapter threatened to picket me if I came to their convention. But others are relieved the truth is finally out. Nelson was quite a womanizer and Jeanette finally had had enough and married actor Gene Raymond for stability. 'That didn't stop her from caring for Nelson. It's just like in their movies when they sing 'Indian Love Call,' isn't it?'"</li> <li> The article notes: "SHARON RICH, the author of three books about Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy, will be making a pilgrimage to Washington next Friday on behalf of the two crooners, who appeared together in eight films. It's not fair, Ms. Rich said, that the movie stars' likenesses have never been on a United States postage stamp. Ms. Rich, who is also head of Eddy-MacDonald fan club, has collected 20,000 signatures on a petition and will take them to the capital 'to toss them on the desk of the person in charge of making decisions' at the Postal Service. In addition, she will bring with her a contingent of other fans who will march along with her singing 'Indian Love Call,' the couple's famous duet."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sharon Rich to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Keep The article in its current state passes the basic editorial requirements for inclusion. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - sufficient coverage as shown by the additions to the article since it was nominated.  gongshow  talk  08:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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.