Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Dhowre

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 while acknowledging the delete !votes have some valid points and this isn't an ironclad clear keep, there isn't a scenario where this is deleted. Whether this should be under this title or a different one can be solved outside this discussion. The closure should not be read as keep at this title, as there is no consensus (yet?) as to that. Star Mississippi 02:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Dhowre[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Sabrina Dhowre (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)

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 May 1.

Prior AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Dhowre Elba

(For convenience, and not an endorsement of any of them, the DRV had a list of possible sources.

Dhowre:

Courcelles (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per the sources cited above, I would argue that there is enough to keep the page. Hence, my !vote is keep. In addition, this page was sadly deleted on May 1st (as a user was said to recreate a deleted page) and without much discussion. I would further argue that the deletion of this page on February 28 was done with very little participation, with only five users participating. I thank the OP for copying this information from DRV, as that was my post on there. As a note, here is what Courcelles (the OP of this AfD) said about the re-opening of this as an AfD: "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." My comment on the DRV, apart from the links, which have been mentioned by the OP, was as follows:

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.

Hope that helps.Historyday01 (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The users in that discussion (@Robert McClenon, @SmokeyJoe, @Hobit, @Jclemens, @Alalch E., @Extraordinary Writ) and those which commented on the previous AfD (@Onel5969, @Oaktree b, @CT55555, @Onel5969, @2001:569:74E3:4000:45BE:8C5F:EE1B:95E3, and Clear Looking Glass) may wish to comment in this discussion. Historyday01 (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On first look, I lean “delete” due to the best-looking sources being non-independent (full of subject direct quotes) and promotional. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete, these all appear to be celebrity gossip articles, how they handled covid, how their wedding went. MSNBC is an interview. No articles about the individual as a person. She did this, and wore this, and her husband said this etc. Most are mentions of what her spouse Idris Elba does, she happens to be mentioned in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure there are more articles, as I remember finding a good deal when searching for her before, and will see if I can find some more through searches. Historyday01 (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - When there is a lot of churnalistic publicity about a person, it is easier to create and keep a short article than to deal with the constant attempts to game the system, and there is some secondary coverage of her, just not much. Sometimes it is easier to just have articles about people who are famous for being famous. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create Locked Redirects from the variant forms of her name to the preferred form of her name. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can agree with that. That does seem like a good idea. Historyday01 (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The use of variant transliterations of names that are natively written in non-Roman scripts is a common problem, and we need to deal with it, separately from dealing with people who are famous for being famous. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Cosmo and Oprah Daily sources are compelling; the fact that there exists plenty more coverage which isn't independent RS SIGCOV about her doesn't change the fact that the GNG has been met. Jclemens (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can agree. If I find any other reliable sources, I'll surely add them. Historyday01 (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Oprah is strong. The Independent focuses on her. Plenty of other sourcing here to trivially meet the GNG. Hobit (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources are mainly celeb gossip (focused on her husband) and primary sources, which don't establish WP:GNG notability. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 05:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure how the sources are primary. And while I'm unaware of "celeb gossip" being a reason to discount a source, the "mainly" means that not solely and we have 20+ sources, so are you saying there aren't two good ones in there? Did you look at the ones I and Jclemens have called out? A bunch of bad sources (and I'll disagree most of them *are* bad) doesn't reduce the relevance of the good ones. Hobit (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm going to refrain from an actual !vote until further review, but even though I'm leaning towards a keep basically per Robert McClenon (and honestly I was tempted to throw in a comment against renominating/relisting immediately post-restore at the DRV, though I obviously didn't manage to decide to do so before it closed), I'd rank Cosmo and Oprah as maybe, but Independent leans a little into primary (which given the name I guess is a little ironic ^_^). If downweighting celeb gossip, the reason would probably be NOTNEWS, though application dependent on judgement and somewhat subjective, so closers should likely expect some supporting analysis. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Celebrity gossip articles don't add to notability here. "Wearing a red dress that impressed people" or articles like that are in no way indication of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on the amount of news coverage, seems to meet WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Hkkingg (talk) 07:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, there is "celeb" stuff, but it is all about SIGCOV in quality RS, and she has that in Time, The Guardian, BBC. She is notable, and her actions and husband mean that it is only likely that her notability is going to increase from here. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even the Financial Times does her BIO in detail? If we applied this bar to all BLPs, few would get through. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, it is considered necessary for at least some of the content of the article to have originated from an intellectually independent source (i.e. not direct quotes) for it to count as independent for any of our coverage based notability guidelines that require that. By that metric, Cosmo and Oprah are far better than the articles you picked out. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that she has a wide range of quality RS doing quite good pieces on her. This is not a "passing mentions" or an "inherited notability" case. I was surprised she was deleted in February 2023 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Dhowre Elba with this amount of RS available. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's why I tried to bring the page back, as the previous discussion only had FOUR users, apart from the OP, contributing, and the discussion was wrapped up pretty quickly too. Historyday01 (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An entirely non-independent source is not "quite a good piece" for the purposes of establishing notability, and four participants is actually quite a lot for AfDs. Especially these days, because we seem to be seeing much less participation. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Looking at the extent of news coverage, seems to meet WP:GNG. 33ABGirl (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - She's basically known for being someones wife but on her own there's barely anything on her. I'm not really seeing much in evidence of notaility that warrants an article - I certainly wouldn't oppose Merging to Idris Elba if that can be done but as it stands on her own as an individual person she is't notable and the sources imho prove that. –Davey2010Talk 15:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess my !vote is WP:NOTINHERITED .... I'm seeing some "notability" for being someones wife but not for being an actual person but if that alone isn't a valid reason then you might as well dump me with the keep camp. –Davey2010Talk 15:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Aszx5000. There are a lot of sources, some quite impressive, and they are ongoing. Do not redirect to husband. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sabrina_Dhowre&oldid=1160043174"