Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweethearts (book)


 * 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 merge to Sharon Rich.  A  Train talk 00:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Sweethearts (book)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NBOOK. The two reviews cited are standard one-paragraph superficiality.  E Eng  02:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect19:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)  Delete Per Binksternet's rationale for keeping, I say Merge with Sharon Rich, don't need two. Atsme 📞📧 19:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC) - per nom, not notable. Atsme 📞📧 04:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - seems to just barely meet NBOOK. I'd tend to rate Kirkus reviews as being above superficiality, personally.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Kirkus review, in its entirety, reads:
 * This lengthy biography of Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy reveals lives as melodramatic and star-crossed as one of their movies--without the happy ending. Author Rich (president of one of four MacDonald/Eddy fan clubs still extant in the US) reveals more about the two lovers than even the most avid fan might want to know, including Nelson's descriptions of Jeanette's ``little nighties. The question it leaves unanswered is how the feisty soprano and the lusty baritone, certainly among Hollywood's most popular stars during the late 1930s and early '40s, managed to make such goulash of their love affair. Although both singers regularly denied it, according to Rich, they were attracted to each other from the moment they met. MacDonald was characterized as ``an ambitious career gal with a bad reputation and was rumored to be one of Louis B. Mayer's couch tomatoes. Mayer, in fact, frowned on the singers' relationship for professional as well as personal reasons, but cast them in Naughty Marietta, their first film together. It made the duet stars--and brought them to bed after nearly a year of stolen kisses. It wasn't romantic. In a jealous rage, Nelson raped Jeanette, according to Rich. But she forgave him, beginning a cycle of reconciliation and rejection that went on for 30 years, and included suicide attempts and miscarriages. In a rejection phase, MacDonald married actor Gene Raymond (who, she discovered, preferred men as sexual partners) while Eddy wed a possessive woman who refused divorce, in spite of his numerous infidelities (MacDonald was not the only liaison). A source for much of the material, including intimate details of the couples' private meetings, is Eddy's mother, Isabel, via her son's diaries and letters. A filmography is included. A bonanza for MacDonald/Eddy fans, a pan full of nuggets for aficionados of Hollywood and MGM, but an encyclopedic struggle for the less dedicated.
 * While were at it, here's the other review cited in the article, from the LA Times:
 * Millions of people are still devoted to entertainers such as Judy Garland, Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe and James Dean because of their charismatic lifestyles and untimely deaths. But the real film phenomenon is the continued devotion of fans all over America to Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy, the singing co-stars who reigned in Hollywood during the 1930s and 1940s.Their fan clubs, which include a number of Ventura residents, are thriving despite the fact that the pair has been dead almost 30 years. The largest Mac/Eddy club is headed by Sharon Rich, author of a controversial biography "Sweethearts," recently published by Donald I. Fine. The book describes a long-term off-screen love affair between the two, while they were married to other people.At home following a book tour in England, Rich will do a live interview at noon Saturday on KQSB 990-AM in the Earthling Bookshop and will sign books beginning at 2 p.m. MacDonald/Eddy musicals will be screened all afternoon at the bookstore, 1137 State St., Santa Barbara.
 * This is superficial coverage.  E Eng  17:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Someone's added a third review to the article, from The Library Journal. It reads, in the entirety of its six sentences:
 * In the 1930s and 1940s, there was no singing due more popular in the movies than Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy. Conventional wisdom has always held that there was never anything between the two in real life. Jeanette, who earlier had starred in sophisticated comedies with Maurice Chevalier, enjoyed a long and happy marriage with actor Gene Raymond and exhibited an amused tolerance at best for wooden Nelson. Rich, president of the largest of an amazing four MacDonald/Eddy fan clubs in America, tells a different story. According to her the duo carried on an affair for decades. One wishes that some of the more sensational claims were better substantiated, but in the main, this book rings true. It is full of flowery language (from the principals' letters), illegitimate pregnancies, suicide attempts, mental breakdowns, and true romance. Fans will love it.
 * My earlier comment stands.  E Eng  20:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Kirkus and Library Journal are both good sources for books. I did find a long article about the book in the news here: here. Passes NBook. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A "long article" that says nothing about the book itself until the last three sentences is not much of a review. Another source you've added says about the book and its author:
 * As president of the Pittsburgh chapter of the International Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy "MacEddy" fan club, Mr. Wood, 71, of Houston, Pa., will be hosting a local meeting at his Washington County home with Sharon Rich, international president of the club. Even for those who have never heard of the singing screen duo -- and they are out there -- this should be a lively meeting. Ms. Rich, of New York, is the author of "Sweethearts," a lurid expose of the secret love affair between the two -- complete with suicide attempts, illegitimate pregnancies and marriages to others -- that lasted for nearly three decades.[...]"One hundred years from now, we'll probably still have fan clubs for Marilyn Monroe, Elvis, Michael Jackson and the Beatles, but I wouldn't put Nelson Eddy and Jeanette MacDonald on that list, or even in the top 100," he said. Ms. Rich begs to differ, noting that a film script about the star-crossed, adulterous couple is in the works.
 * The Paris Review "review" is a blog post that says nothing at all about the book until:
 * Only a few years ago, I ran across a book at a library sale that ripped the scales from my eyes. I refer to Sweethearts: The Timeless Love Affair Onscreen and Off Between Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy, by Sharon Rich. From the flap copy:[Quotation of flap copy]Obviously, I devoured it. Not only that, I spent a good long while on the author’s excellent and comprehensive Web site.
 * This kind of straining only makes it clear how superficial the coverage is.  E Eng  22:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Kirkus in no longer reliable (nowadays they review for pay), but it was in 94. In the past, we've usually considered three even brief reviews as sufficient for NBOOK. Personally, I think that's a pretty loose standard, as Kirkus and LJ basically tried to cover any book which might be suitable for a public library. This is a good place to start changing the interpretation of NBOOK, to prevent our coverage of books from being WP:INDISCRIMINATE.    DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , you might be interested in Farm-Fresh eye.png Wikipedia talk:Notability (books). czar  04:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This isn't exactly true as far as I can tell. Kirkus Indie is a pay to review journal, not Kirkus itself. Searches about pay reviews seem to always link back to Kirkus Indie for me. If you have some other sources that show Kirkus is "pay to review," I'd love to see them. Thanks! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , 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 ) 23:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, . I don't find your argument persuasive. It's really clear from the websites that there are different criteria being used. In the case of Kirkus they outline their submission guidelines in detail. Nothing is said about "pay to review." However, when you look at Kirkus Indie you see that it's clearly for pay. There's no reason to not rely on Kirkus because they have another venue for self-published works. It's easy to separate the two kinds of reviews on the site as well: if the book is self-published, then it's an Indie. Librarians recommend the use of Kirkus still and consider it a reliable source. See MLIS recommendations for review sources: LIU, UW, Evaluation of sources, UHM, and these are just a few I found after cursory search. DGG, your opinion is in the minority and shouldn't affect the way we look at NBOOK. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * fwiw, I am quite accustomed to my opinion being in the minority, at least at first.  DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The above reviews have convinced me that enough of our readers will be interested in learning about the book. Also, E.J. Fleming cites the book a few times in The Fixers. And Jane Ellen Wayne talks about the book on page 3 of The Golden Girls of MGM: Glamour and Grief, ISBN 9781861054074 ... There's also Victoria Etnier Villamil who cites the book in From Johnson's Kids to Lemonade Opera on pages 259, 260 and 291. Wait, we have Cari Beauchamp citing the book in Without Lying Down, on page 430. So let's keep this article about a book that is obviously influential in its field. Binksternet (talk) 08:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Sharon Rich. I agree with DGG that there's no reason to have an article on both her and this book, and feel that the biographical article is a better one to keep. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 23:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:NBOOK (and WP:GNG), article reflects this as citing two or more reviews that are non-trivial and independent of the author/book, i see that one of the footnotes of nbook is "1. The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment." so it could be argued that even a review of a single sentence can be enough, of course this would depend on the type of book being reviewed (and possibly who the reviewer is(?)), and may preclude 'flap copy', but thats enough waffling:). Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * also happy with a Merge to Sharon Rich :) Coolabahapple (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Keep The book passes Notability: "A review in The Los Angeles Times called the book 'controversial'. According to Kirkus Reviews, the book is a 'bonanza for MacDonald/Eddy fans' and people interested in the history of MGM, but too detailed for readers with less specialized interests. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette called the book a 'lurid expose.' Library Journal wrote, 'Fans will love it.' Sadie Stein wrote in the Paris Review that she 'devoured' the book and then went to Rich's website to find out more."
 * Merge with Sharon Rich per Power~enwiki. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect with Sharon Rich, better to have one more substantive article than two short ones. But if consensus is keep, I won't complain. Montanabw (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge with Sharon Rich And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge with Sharon Rich per [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sharon_Rich_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=808439060 my statement] at the other AfD. Also per Montanabw. Probably better to have one substantive article for the sake of the readers than two short ones. --Majora (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

There is enough information for a standalone article about Sweethearts. Cunard (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Kirkus and LJ are trade publications with short reviews and rather indiscriminate selection (their role is to help librarians select books, not to show discretion in their selection like a book review publication). The Paris Review and LA Times sources are mere blurbs, again with no depth. Pittsburgh's is inaccessible. This is a textbook case of a book whose coverage is written in context of other topics, which should serve as our guide on proportionality (read: we should cover it the same way). So merge into the author's article and mention as appropriate in the book subjects' articles. czar  04:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * on balance, I can think of very few instances where an author known only for one book and the book are independently notable (Gone with the Wind comes to mind as the clearest example. I can think of no cases at all where the author of a non-fiction book where the book is the only notable book, and the author known only for the same subject as treated in the book are both notable. They are certainly in that case not independently notable. Every instance I recall of 2 WP articles being written in this situation are either fan interest, or promotionalism .  My bias is always to select the author in that case; the rationale is that the author is known for the subject, and the book is  an example of that notability.  (whne both a clear promotionalism, that's different--then we should delete both, as in other instances; but I do not think this is truly promotionalism)  DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with you DGG. Sharon Rich was recently closed as keep, so merging the book with her bio makes sense. Some may not think her notability is encyclopedic, being that she was a highly active and avid fan of two popular singing celebrities, but after the smoke clears we're left with a body of work that she created which received substantial media attention, and it has endured internationally which lends it some historic significance. Atsme 📞📧 14:13, 5 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.