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 main article; merge the others; I rely on Cunard or Arxiloxos or I, JethroBT or one of the others supporting the merge to do so. As the other will become redirects, no deletions are necessary. . DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Rich[edit]

Sharon Rich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
Jeanette MacDonald Autobiography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jeanette MacDonald: The Irving Stone Letters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nelson Eddy: The Opera Years (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mac/Eddy Today (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a WP:Walled garden of articles about Sharon Rich and her works on Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy. For only one of Rich's works, Sweethearts (book), have I been able to find any third-party coverage at all. All the others, created and/or heavily edited by User:Maceddy, only cite primary sources, with a promotional undertone, with no improvement for years. No indication of notability for Rich herself or any of her works beyond Sweethearts. Huon (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I was able to dig a little bit on Rich and Sweethearts through the LA Times:
Two of these already appear on the Sweethearts (book) article. The first one is very substantive, but is mostly about the book and its development. That said, sources are generally sparse. Her name does not appear on the Knights Hospitallers website and I cannot confirm her Order of Malta award either. I don't see enough here for a biography, nor is there sufficient coverage of the other works. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Sharon Rich is truly all that notable in and of herself is debatable, but the topics of Nelson Eddy and Jeanette MacDonald, which apparently constitute the bulk of her life's work, are most definitely notable so this pushes the discussion slightly toward KEEP imo, since she has gone to incredible lengths in the study of her topics, even going so far as to edit a book of letters between MacDonald and a pre-Eddy lover, one Irving Stone, not the writer but an early 20th century department store owner. Since she has created lots of factual content about famous people, I would say KEEP, since there is an article on Clifford Irving, whose most famous work was a bogus bio of another prominent Hollywood person, Howard Hughes. 2600:1004:B11B:BD40:6119:7316:FF63:1A49 (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E 09:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aerospeed (Talk) 02:34, 30 January 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.