Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neely 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. (non-administrative closure) – RyanCross (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neely O'Hara

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

This character does not establish notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability and no reliable sources. Karanacs (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the most reliable sources about the character's life and history would be primary, which is fair enough. Now whether this character has enough coverage in reliable third party sources is the key point. I think they do, per these two searches [1] and [2]. RMHED (talk) 01:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the searches above, which are sufficient for this. DGG (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out which ones can be used? I don't really see any that provide anything non-trivial to help establish real world context. TTN (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Merge and Redirect~~ ~~to Valley of the Dolls where this character has its notability.~~ Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About half way down this article there is quite a bit of discussion [3], but mainly the character is often referenced in books about Hollywood movies and sometimes in works of fiction as a kind of Hollywood actress archetype. RMHED (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So we currently have one reference that amounts to trivial coverage, maybe two if the book below actually focuses on the character rather than the film. Quick mentions in fiction can't really be used besides using one or two as examples to back up the initial point. This need enough coverage to warrant being a separate topic from the main works. Nothing has been shown that it is remotely possible yet. TTN (talk) 12:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Neely is cited in The Fifty Worst Films of All Time -- the book is out of print, sadly, but there is a long chapter on "Valley of the Dolls" and the character. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like TTN, I am also leery of writing character articles from sourcing which do not mean to discuss the character but instead mean to discuss the work. I see no reason why this character is made more or less notable (in other words, is covered more or less in secondary sources) by the coverage of Valley of the Dolls (film) or Valley of the Dolls. However, there are ~12 Scholar sources that seem to cover the character, as well as 10-20 book sources (the majority of the Gbooks list isn't helpful). News sources are mainly film and television reviews, so I'm not digging through those for something meaningful. But this character itself is covered in third party sources. that is what matters. Protonk (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will anyone add these sources to the article, or shall we see it back at AfD in 6 months? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:48, 12 October 2008 (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.