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. Given less weight to canvassed and votes based on personal attacks. The argument around the sources is around their reliability and whether they pass the GNG. Generally, in the UK, tabloid sources do not count so arguments about the Mirror et al are valid but broadsheet coverage does. The argument then comes down to whether interviews are enough to pass the gng. There is a wide consensus that they do not - indeed they are considered primary not secondary sources as the information comes from the subject not an independant source. As that is essentially the argument put forward to counter the keep argument, it does firmly reflect policy and practise and leaves the conclusion that the consensus is to delete. That said, I have the sense that this is very close to the line and that further coverage not based in interviews presented in my talk page could persuade me to reverse this close. Spartaz Humbug! 21:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nigma Talib[edit]

Nigma Talib (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:BIO. The best claim to notability is that she wrote a book that appeared at number 248 on the Amazon.com bestseller's list. This does not seem good enough per WP:AUTHOR. The other claims to notability are based on press-coverage that seem to be more part of a junket rather than notable for some sort of journalistic reason. It may happen that eventually she gets her own talkshow or becomes famous and notable for some reason, but until that time I think it is irresponsible for Wikipedia to have a WP:BLP on this subject since there isn't really much to go on by way of reliable independent sources we would need to write a biography on a naturopath. jps (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  19:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  19:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • NPOV and BLP are not notability standards. Obviously additional or more stringent notability standards are what I was referring to. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 11:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • NPOV and BLP are not notability standards, but articles must still meet these policies, and deletion is not only for notability, the article fails NPOV and BLP and maybe cannot ever pass, so delete it. The gruesome Scourge of Trumpton 15:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
" Daily Telegraph and other celebrity-focused magazines" is nonsense. By any standards, The Telegraph is a reliable source and is not a 'celebrity-focused magazine'. Just Chilling (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did anyone bother to search those locations mentioned in the article? Highbeam search shows four mentions of The Mirror, The Birmingham Post, Daily Record and Chronicle, definitely independent reliable sources on [1]. If she was interviewed in that many reliable sources she'd be notable. I am changing my vote to Strong keep Ireneshih (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As jps pointed out, the number of mentions are effects of a PR junket and also seem to be from syndication, rather than multiple reliable sources. The locations are irrelevant if they are basically copying the same content, which was reporting on natural ways to keep skin moisturised without sunscreen. Those sources are not reliable as they discuss pseudoscience topics, like taking "a teaspoon of organic sesame oil, swish it in my mouth for a minute each morning and then spit it out. It helps detoxify the body and improve skin” or "Headstands are great for getting the blood to flow to the face, oxygenating your complexion and helping to remove wrinkle-inducing toxins." Those sources are tabloid-style publications which are not known for publishing purely journalistic content of high reliability. According to WP:Potentially_unreliable_sources, "In general, tabloid-journalist newspapers, such as The Sun, Daily Mirror, Daily Mail, equivalent television shows, or sites like The Register, should not be used." Delta13C (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delta13C, Do you mean The Mirror, The Birmingham Post, Daily Record, Telegraph, New York Observer, Daily Mail and others are not reliable??? If you believe they are not reliable sources there are atleast 100k existing Wikipedia pages referenced with these sources, lets clean all these pages with sources and bring all of these pages to WP:AFD. If they are a part of PR junket, it is clearly marked on them as as Press Release or Paid Advertisement. Reviewing your recent contributions, they seem to be mostly focused around only this page after your failed attempt to create a promotional page of another naturopath Draft:Michael Uzick. If you know what reliable sources and what are not, why this page was attempted??? Is Nigma Talib a business competitor of Draft:Michael Uzick?


WP:PUS is an essay and as such has no status. Further it is incomplete and, in any case, no justification has been given to support those sources that are included. Just Chilling (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PUS, like all such essays, is a rationale and isn't -- and was never intended to be -- some sort of binary law. Proclaiming "it's just an essay" is, in fact, an implicit admission you don't have an actual counter-argument to use against it. --Calton | Talk 02:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PUS has good advice. In addition to being circumspect of sources that qualify as tabloid journalism it also makes a great point about Who's Who scams, of which one was formally referenced in the Nigma Talib article section on Awards and Recognition Old revision of Nigma Talib. I understand that editors should apply advice in essays if they help improve Wikipedia. In this case because most of the citations in Nigma Talib come from tabloid, celebrity gossip newspapers and talk about pseudoscience topics and are aimed at business promotion, rather than discussing real achievements, influence on history or science, or anything that would suggest a notable contribution to the greater good. As far as I can tell, Nigma Talib does spa treatments on celebrities and makes dubious claims about gluten and wine affecting the health of facial skin, which are not supported by science. I'd hardly call the page I tried to create of Michael Uzick a promotional page. I noted he has been sanctioned by his naturopathic board for using a pecular substance that is illegal in his practice, which I thought was curious and perhaps notable. It was my first try at making a page (trying to stick to WP:NPOV, and I wanted to gain experience. I learned a lot, including how to use reliable sources, which is what I am now applying in this case. Delta13C (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delta13C, Can you please review List of newspapers in the United Kingdom by circulation, Page has references from the most reliable sources (Only for references Telegraph.co.uk is Daily Telegraph). Also I would again like to know how Draft:Michael Uzick is notable 20 days back?? 09:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment regarding the assertion that PR efforts on the article subject's behalf magically make reliable sources not count: No. Companies and individuals issue press releases all the time, and Wikipedia properly does not consider such sources when looking for sources to establish notability. However, once a reliable source such as The Telegraph takes information contained in a press release and subjects it to fact-checking and editorital control, the resulting article, even if based in part on such press releases, is both a reliable source and a valid proof of the notability of subjects discussed in any depth in the article. If we discounted every newspaper or magazine article that used a press release as a source for some of its content, half of Wikipedia (or more?) would have to go. I realize this fact about use of press releases by mainstream press outlets may not be obvious to some people who have never worked in publishing; hopefully the distinction between a press release and an article which used a press release as a source is now clear. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 11:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Calton, if WP:GNG isn't a guarantee of being eligible for an article, then there are higher chances than there are thousands of pages on Wikipedia would qualify for deletion. Your reasons are not satisfactory. Can you please review the history of the page, most of her contributions were edited and deleted by users.

Please review Category:Internet celebrities, they also qualify only due to WP:GNG. If the she was referenced in only one or two sources, she would have failed WP:GNG but with the existing sources notability is WP:INHERITED. Ireneshih (talk) 07:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject here is Talib's articles. The subject here is not internet celebrities, climate change, or the batting averages of the 1939 San Francisco Seals. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.
So, did you have anything resembling an actual argument, our are you limited to frantic handwaving? --Calton | Talk 02:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that for the argument of inheritance to work for notability, then Nigma Talib needs to be associated with something that is certainly notable. What is this legitimately notable something? Delta13C (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inheritance is in the number of reliable sources, 1 where she is mentioned as an expert naturopath and indeed much more reliable than Draft:Michael Uzick. If she isn't notable, how Draft:Michael Uzick is notable 20 days back??
Stuartyeates, Did you checked these http://www.telegraph.co.uk/wellbeing/health-advice/the-skin-doctor-who-will-change-your-life/ http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/beauty/news-features/TMG10624773/Nigma-Talib-The-Complete-Woman.html 4, http://observer.com/2014/11/have-you-got-wheat-wine-or-dairy-face/ http://www.graziadaily.co.uk/beauty/beauty-products/naturopathic-expert-dr-nigma-talib-shows-us-what-s-inside-her-make-up-bag-20141227905 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p035d8qd
I checked all but the video (which doesn't play for me). A non-adversarial interview with the subject, where no prior research or critical evaluation is apparent, is not independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stuartyeates, Again checking upon again on your comment, Many of the sources which mention her do not cover her 'in depth' as required by the WP:GNG. Do you still believe it doesn't meet WP:GNG? References are from List of newspapers in the United Kingdom by circulation, even if they are interviews they do not call any naturopath multiple times if they are not reliable or non-notable (Review). If not than what about Category:Internet celebrities, there are all references of interviews only ?Ireneshih (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stuartyeates, articles are allowed to cite sources which do not establish notability when the purpose of the citation is to establish a fact in the article. So long as several of the sources cited are in depth and from reliable independent sources, it is not required that all sources cited cover the subject in depth. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 11:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • articles are allowed to cite sources which do not establish notability when the purpose of the citation is to establish a fact in the article. Except that they're being used here to establish notability. Which, well, they don't. --Calton | Talk 02:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My intent is not to WP:Votestacking, but asking senior resources why the page wasn't deleted earlier by them when it wasn't notable, Again the same question, how Draft:Michael Uzick is notable 20 days back according to you when Nigma Talib is not? Ireneshih (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You selectively solicited votes. That is votestacking. I concede that Draft:Michael Uzick is not notable. It was my first try at creating an article. Delta13C (talk) 09:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So does it means that you have less experience in clarfying what is notable and what is not? (Review this) This is indeed not your first try at creating an article, it is second after KWUR. I typically do not understand why your edits are only around this page, whether it is tag templates or noticeboard? As suggested by GrammarFascist, Please focus on the contributions, not the contributors. Ireneshih (talk) 09:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I forgot I created the KWUR article. It was over 10 years ago. I guess Uzick article then is considered by first article creation in recent memory. Thanks for pointing that out. I did make a mistake in issuing a warning, which I retracted, because I misread the timestamps of that user's edits. This discussion between you and me is becoming less about the merits of the Nigma Talib article and more about your analysis of my contributions to Wikipedia. Why don't we move this aspect of our disagreement to your talk page or mine? Delta13C (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging editors to a deletion discussion who have previously contributed to an article (including its talk page) is not necessarily an attempt at canvassing or votestacking. If all editors who recently contributed are included, it is arguably merely a courtesy. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 11:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective pinging is votestacking, you know the ping did not include other editors, so why pretend this is harmless? The gruesome Scourge of Trumpton 15:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said selective pinging was not votestacking; why pretend I did? Put the strawman down. That said, the ping appears to have targeted editors who a) had edited the article recently but b) had not participated in the deletion discussion. Editors who had already participated, regardless of which view we took, were not included presumably because they had already contributed to the discussion. Asking an editor why they didn't nominate an article for deletion that was subsequently nominated by someone else is reasonable, and Ireneshih sepecifically gave that as her reason for pinging those editors. There was no way to know whether they would be in favor of or opposed to deletion; some editors who worked on the article had already argued in favor of deletion. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 12:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia's need to stamp out any and all naturopaths. Really. And your evidence for Wikipedia's need is, what, exactly? Did I miss the "Wikipedia:Stamp Out Naturopaths/Noticeboard" page? --Calton | Talk 02:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'CommentNigma Talib: The Complete Woman" expresses an identity and atleast for me means the same and other sources even point out this.Kavdiamanju (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While that article's title bears the subject's name, it does not cover her in depth but rather talks briefly about various pseudoscientific habits the subject does on a daily basis, like reiki, while promoting seven+ distinct products or individuals' businesses. That article is obviously part of a press junket. Delta13C (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So any mention in the Telegraph means you are notable and should ignore all Wikipedia policies? Guess we should get cracking, there's thousands of BLPs to write.DreamGuy (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Complete Woman" is a regular series in The Telegraph that superficially highlights women in fashion and beauty alongside flagrant promotion of commercial products they like: [2] Delta13C (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, DreamGuy I might agree to your comment if it was the only source. Even a simple google search drives multiple news sources and the content is WP:NPOV. Telegraph is not a source, which flaunts or exaggerate to being larger, better, or worse than it really is. There are several media reps that claim to publish them in the reliable sources however Telegraph has not confirmed it or even I cannot find any news where Telegraph has confirmed of writing promotional article. If someone claims promotional content on Telegraph, we cannot rely on it without evidence. The example of most promotional content is for WP:ACTOR, where the content is highly promotional and still considered to be reliable. On the contrary these sources are still reliable, this is a better situation and sources are reliable.Kavdiamanju (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with me or diagree, I don't care. But articles have a lengthy list of requirements to stay, and articles that stay have to meet WP:FRINGE and other requirements. If the article manages to stay it won't read remotely like it does now. 17:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree with me or disagree, I don't care are very harsh words when everyone is working on a common goal here. Normally, I would go along with the nomination, but in this case, the sources seem to show that she has gotten significant media attention.Kavdiamanju (talk) 18:31, 15 November 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.
More