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 delete. Sources may exist but have not been provided, and consensus is clear that material does not meet standards. Should someone want to actively work on this, happy to provide. Star Mississippi 02:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sharona Fleming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

A number of fictional characters, particular from Monk have recently been tagged for notability, suggested to be merged, replaced with redirects, and then reverted. This particular article seems to lack any mention of real-world impact and looks ripe for deletion, merging, or redirecting. Lithopsian (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Google News link shows me plenty of apparent coverage. Suggest nom review it per WP:BEFORE and explain why it doesn't meet GNG in light of that, or withdraw nomination and incorporate the relevant parts. Jclemens (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We did talk about this recently, and for me this is still a WP:GOOGLEHITS argument ("I see plenty of mentions=hits in my GScearch). If you see GOOD sources, please list them. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, and you still fundamentally understand the difference between "I see good entries" and "there are X number of hits" arguments. Again, not my job to do WP:BEFORE, that would be the nominator's. I've never watched an episode of the show and have no idea how to really evaluate which are truly worthwhile, so I'm not going to waste my time doing it badly. Jclemens (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You on the other hand don't seem to understand that the WP:BURDEN lies on those seeking to keep content to show the relevant sourcing and verifiability. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I think that the article would be worth retaining, and also after being reviewed per WP:BEFORE (even though I'm not as much of a Monk fan as I once was when I heavily edited the page). DReifGalaxyM31 (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As written, it fails WP:GNG being a pure plot summary. I did a BEFORE search (and yes, here I concur with the commenters above that the nom seems to have forgot about this best practice), but sadly, I see little but plot summaries. I found a sentence or two of analysis here ([1]) but IMHO that is not enough per WP:SIGCOV. If someone really cares, you could use this to add some analysis info, a sentence or so, to her description in the article about the TV series. Do ping me if more sources are found, but for now I don't see sufficient grounds for retaining this article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 06:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a pure plot summary, which is what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Article does not meet the WP:GNG as there are no reliable independent sources that provide suitable coverage. Any relevant plot detail is already covered in other articles, including articles about individual episodes. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nothing more than plot detail. Not relevant to Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2022 (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.