Air Milford – There is no consensus for any particular outcome here, but the general sentiment is that while recreating the article (preferably through AfC) is an option, it is not a good idea unless substantially better sources can be found. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
There are now multiple reliable sources referencing this airline, and I think it would be beneficial to reinstate it. ThumperOP (talk) 08:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a quick google and of the results I've seen, I don't think any would count as non-trivial coverage in a reliable independent, secondary source. Since you apparently had more luck than I did, can you point me to the best three sources which satisfy that standard (Non-trivial, independent, secondary and reliable)? -- 81.100.164.154 (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not totally sure what you mean by non-trivial, but I'm fairly sure most of these pass the other criteria you listed:
These are the sources I found from the Google Search, News and Books query ""Air Milford"". I am confident at least half of these sources are irrelevant to the actual writing of the article, but the original reason for its deletion was "(absence of) significant coverage in multiple reliable sources." Just from scouring Google I could find these and I'm sure someone with more experience could find more.
An important clarification is that I'm not from NZ, so I can't comment on the reliability of NZ newspapers/magazines. I don't know how reliable Stuff.co.nz is, but it gives me news.com.au vibes, which is a Murdoch owned content farm. Also on the books, there are newer versions of some of them, but they didn't provide Google Books previews so I can't be sure if Air Milford is mentioned. My main point is that there is probably a few sources in this list you can base a minimum start class article on, unlike what the deletion request says.
I'm gonna apologise in advance if there's something I've missed or misunderstood. I've been lurking for years on Wikipedia on various different accounts, but I only recently started editing so there's a lot of things I don't understand. I would write this article myself if I could, but I don't really have the confidence to yet. ThumperOP (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for the best 3 you had meeting the basic criteria of non-trivial, independent, secondary, reliable sources to narrow it down. I don't really think it's helpful for me to get into sifting through, saying this source is bad, then you revealing another one etc. It really helps to focus if you would help if you can pick out your best ones.
The discussion pointed to NCORP, this is WP:NCORP, then sections on that page WP:SIRS helps to further defined the terms I've used. So I've said non-trivial, the wording there is "significant", which doesn't mean the source has to be solely about this, but it has to be more than passing mentions, or as one of a list of providers (say). -- 81.100.164.154 (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I take the 2nd and third item from the tourism sites list. I'd argue that they are both trivial coverage, they don't really tell me much if anything about the company. The third which states stuff like "Or choose from our fun, friendly and exclusive Queenstown Scenic Flight tours" would indicate to me a lack of independence. The independent and non-trivial part tend to be things which articles like this suffer from it your aren't careful, many such companies are going to show up in "directory" type listings for tourist, that doesn't make them notable. Likewise they are likely to be in partnership with out tourism companies, so won't be independent. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation either in draft, or in mainspace subject to AFD. We don't need to argue over the quality of the sources here at DRV. That is what AFC review or a second AFD are for. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Go to WP:AFC. Follow advice at WP:THREE. If it’s notable, the best three sources will prove it. If the best three do not, no number of worse sources will make the difference. If you ask me to review 36 sources, I think you are wasting my time. You do the work at finding the best three and I’ll make time to read them. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and I do not support recreation after looking at eight sources, none of which are good for NCORP, having stopped at the one that says "Stuff reporter Louisa Steyl was a guest of Milford Air on its first scenic flight out of Invercargill". It is possible to start a draft.—Alalch E.01:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Sabrina Dhowre – Restored and a new AFD will be procedurally started. The issue here is less the close of the discussion than the inadequacies of the discussion itself. So this close isn’t an overturn, there’s no argument advanced that Randykitty could have made another close based on the discussion. However, there’s enough discussion here to run the newer version through the process again. Courcelles (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
There are multiple reliable sources for Dhowre. In fact, I was in the middle of editing this page, improving and adding to it, when @User:JBW re-deleted it, citing the above noted discussion. Here are some of the sources for Dhowre:
United Nations/IFAD: here, here and here (written by Dhowre)
I am fine with completely reconstructing the page from scratch, but I can only do that if I am sure that it won't be deleted the same day I work on it, ensuring my work goes down the drain. I would see if I could find more, but to even find these, my web browser crashed, and I almost lost ALL of the above, so I'm not going to try again, so I don't really want to try and search for more. I thought I'd at least give this a try and am only marginally hopeful this will be successful, as I've had bad experiences with AfDs before. And no, I am NOT related to ANY of the people that created this page before, I just saw it was re-created today, edited it, and then lo and behold, it was deleted again. I would think (and hope) that @User:QalasQalas and @User:Turktimex3 created these pages in good faith, as an aside. Anyway, I hope to have this matter resolved soon.Historyday01 (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is there some way that the author of an article that has been previously deleted after AFD can tag it to request that the admin reviewing a possible G4 do a detailed compare of the deleted article and the new article, or for the author to include a talk page explanation of why the new article is not the same as the deleted article? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I think you'd have to ask User:QalasQalas for that, as they've reposted the article at least two times since the AfD in February. Historyday01 (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the IFAD articles are pretty good, as are those in the "well-known magazines/publications" publication. I suppose I could use AfC. Historyday01 (talk) 12:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. /changed !vote, see later comments/ I've looked at around half of the sources (stopped at the skin care one), including all of the "pretty good" ones. The AfD arguments also apply to these sources (couple, interview, who got covid news, marriage, marriage, marriage, et cetera). Significant new information since the deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page has not come to light. It is possible to start a draft.—Alalch E.01:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
relist That was a pretty horrible AfD given the sources. [37] is purely about her (yes, it mentions her husband, so will every article about the first lady of the US...). Same with [38]. And tons of articles where she is covered in detail for fairly minor things. Yes, she's mostly covered because of her husband, but so what, the coverage is still about her. That there are non-trivial sources that cover her in-depth cannot be in debate--it's a fact. Hobit (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep as none of the delete arguments, including the nom, sensibly engage with NOTINHERITED. They all seem to expect an independent source of coverage, having nothing to do with a notable family member, rather than her own function as an independent target of coverage. The two articles Hobit links are compelling, but even absent their highlighting, the original AfD should not have been closed as delete without at least one policy-based argument in favor of deletion. It's been far too long to relist, however, so overturn to keep with NPASR. Jclemens (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The base argument was that the subject isn't notable (lack of in-depth coverage / puff pieces), and the NOTINHERITED argument was an unprovoked red herring, probably to preempt such a keep argument. No one then argued in the AfD the subject is notable, i.e. that there is suitable coverage or other factors relevant to a notability standard, so there was consensus to delete. Not a perfect AfD, but just a little worse than average at most.—Alalch E.06:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really feel she doesn't meet WP:N? If so, could you explain why? The coverage is quite in-depth. "puff pieces" is not a deletion argument, it's an "IDONTLIKEIT" argument. Is there anything about her that you would expect in a bio that isn't in these articles? I do get Jclemens' argument as to why a relist isn't an option, but just "list" I guess makes more sense. I don't think this could be closed as keep, but I just think it shouldn't have been closed as delete given how far the arguments are from the facts. Hobit (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we were to discus my stance on the subject's notability, would we really be reviewing the deletion? It would take something exceptional to overturn this AfD with no keeps as a "closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly" case, and I am not seeing this exceptional reason. Seeing how the DRV nominator listed many sources that weren't explicitly discussed, a much more reasonable path to overturning could be arguing that significant new information has come to light. It's then a question of whether any new information that there is makes the consensus achieved in the AfD irrelevant. One of the two pieces which you identified as in-depth coverage was, already in the AfD, by the nominator, identified explicitly as containing in-depth coverage. It's kind of in-depth, yes. It didn't influence anyone to !vote keep. Indeed, editors want there to be multiple such sources. So what do we have that surpasses the information base of the AfD which the consensus to delete rests on? Have multiple good sources come up? I don't think that the other source you pulled, the Oprah Daily article, is sigcov. There is some raw volume in there, but it's incredibly superficial. For example, we can learn that she's a model. As such she was on a Harrods Magazine (the non-notable publication of the retailer) spread. She was at the Met Gala. When WP:SIGCOV talks about discussing the topic in detail, for me, this isn't detail. —Alalch E.16:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've said this, I'll add that it's plausible that this could be a notable topic under WP:NBASIC, but it's more sane to follow the draft route than to overturn a unanimous delete in a mostly average AfD.—Alalch E.16:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd encourage you to go re-read the nom. A bad reading of NOTINHERITED was indeed the primary argument: that she indeed had coverage, but if not for Idris' fame, she would not. If there was a fundamental N argument in there, it got lost. Jclemens (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're just reading it differently. There's subjectivity in play. But...okay, yes, despite my feeling that the base-level rationale was an appropriate lack-of-SIGCOV concern, the resulting discussion was influenced by the non-illuminating NOTINHERITED argument (which I still see as a gratuitous red herring) too much; more/better discussion is needed, and I am changing my !vote to relist. I appreciate how you said that It's been far too long to relist, but... whatever. Maybe a new AfD. Just don't overturn. Relist or new AfD, per DRV closer discretion.—Alalch E.19:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. There's simply no policy- or guideline-based support for asking "would sources have covered this person but for her husband?", which is essentially what happened here. (Determining whether someone deserves to be notable is above our pay grade—we follow the sources.) Even NOTINHERITED, which is just an essay, is clear that as long as the GNG is met, people can have stand-alone articles even if "they are known solely for" their personal relationships. The closer thus should have given little or no weight to the delete !votes. Further discussion is needed to answer the question of whether the GNG is met (which got very short shrift); I don't really care whether we relist the old AfD or just restore the page and start a new one. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
