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.
Advertorialized resume-like practically unsourced article failing WP:GNG. The article includes WP:COI editing with "the assistant to Zainab Salbi" having 72 edits of 74 by the account on the article[1][2]. After much deliberation and research, I'm nominating this for AfD.
The most 'notable' item about her is co-founding the nonprofit Women for Women International, and reliable, independent, secondary sourcing typically has little to say about her role, ie. that she co-founded it, and a sentence or two on the org's impact which is information that can be traced to its website[3], or that she left as CEO in 2011.
Her other activity has been authoring (not meeting the criteria of WP:AUTHOR or WP:JOURNALIST; and on further research by far her most "known" book is not significant especially not compared to other modern memoirs such as[4][5] nevermind books in general, nor widely cited) and a few short-lived, non-notable podcasts/talk shows.
The overwhelming majority of available sourcing I looked through in researching (200+) are primary, unreliable, and/or affiliated with her - her website, mini-bios/profiles on the self-published websites of organizations or individuals she has been affiliated with or gave a talk with (Ex: [6][7]), her words about herself, interviews orgs/individuals have had with her (Ex: [8]), articles and books written by her, and in one case an insignificant book anecdote by an acquaintance about an interaction.
Secondary sources, regardless of reliability, typically make very short mention (often 1-3 sentences) [9][10], or giving a quote by her[11] or in a couple instances recounting a passage about her from one of her books.
There's not really the required substantial/significant, in-depth "secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"[12] about her, and without depth going beyond the website profiles or other primary sourcing. That is, and fair caution for discussion, on a surface look, it may appear that many sources out there fitting the necessary criteria exist such as the mini-profiles, but while they mention her in some way, they fit into the mentioned categories of sourcing. The most ostensibly "notable", detailed source, a few mixed prose/interview pieces, for example is still a primary source with a direct dependency on the subject.
WP:CIRCULAR concern: a lot of the sourcing out there appear to draw in part from the Wikipedia article, some being direct copy-pastes.[13] This article in part appears to function as base information for use on website profiles, interview/talk introductions, and other sources affiliated with the subject, and so is advertorial or promotional to a demonstrable extent. This makes it difficult to determine what would be WP:CIRCULAR sourcing if such sources are to be included considering the historical state of the article.
What's here is not inherently notable enough to exempt the article from having to show considerably better quality sourcing and establishing unquestionable notability than what the historically poor sourcing on the article and more importantly, the low-depth and/or low reliability sourcing that the broader internet and literature provide. This article hasn't been a subject of neglect, and, including with COI involvement, has not been able to establish notability for over 15 years. Delete, or redirect to Women for Women International, per failing WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dec 27 update: Since there has been significant editing on the article since the nom, this update is to be made. There have been 6 new participants on the AfD since then basing arguments on a brief look of the updated state of the article, 5 of which have been WP:JUSTAPOLICY comments, under the assumption that any sources added = notability provided, which is not correct according to policy as pointed out by multiple people here. However, the sourcing added is almost entirely tertiary, primary, non-independent, unreliable, or the "staff" profiles on self-published affiliated org websites, and little of the necessary "secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" to presume notability per WP:NBASIC. I'll likely add a Talk section on the article pointing out each source falling into these categories since this is going missed. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On basis of notability established as follows:
ASL, M. P. Micro-Physics of Discipline: Spaces of the Self in Middle Eastern Women Life Writings. International Journal of Arabic-English Studies (IJAES), [s. l.], v. 20, n. 2, p. 223–240, 2020. DOI 10.33806/ijaes2000.20.2.12. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=145173932&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 25 dez. 2022. (17 mentions of her in this academic paper discussing her book Between Two Worlds Escape from Tyranny: Growing up in the Shadow of Saddam)
MUHTASEB, A. Us Media Darlings: Arab and Muslim Women Activists, Exceptionalism and the “Rescue Narrative”. Arab Studies Quarterly, [s. l.], v. 42, n. 1/2, p. 7–24, 2020. DOI 10.13169/arabstudquar.42.1-2.0007. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=143165214&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 25 dez. 2022. (critiques her role in an episode of This Week TV program, in which she was interviewed, her name is mentioned 10 times in the article)
Thanks for your comment but unfortunately this doesn't fit WP:AUTHOR's criteria. Your point works better towards demonstrating some notability of the particular book Between Two Worlds, but not of Salbi herself, which is more along the lines of WP:NBOOK, and does not establish the book as significant either. WP:LOTSOFSOURCES is pertinent here too, if applied to mentions within a source "not just the mere presence of the searched-for term".
1. This paper is not focused on Salbi or her book specifically, but instead on female oppression in the Middle East and multiple works by different authors, Salbi's Between Two Worlds being one of them. Where it does mention Salbi, it speaks on her book, not her. The comment on number of mentions is misleading. Of the 17 mentions, 1 is a "keyword", 3 are mentioning she is the book's author, 3 are cited pages from the book eg. "(Salbi 2005:80)", 4 are about Salbi's mother (not Salbi) in the context of what's written in the book, 4 are general statements about all the women's books (eg. "Sultana, Nafisi, Salbi and al-Sharif"), and just 2 are about Salbi/Salbi's characterization in the book. Regardless, what is said in this paper are passages and limited analytical depth on what's written in the book and may be argued as contributing to the book's notability, not her or what makes her notable. Furthermore, the reliability of IJAES is unclear too. Her having lived in Iraq and knowing a leader because of her father's job does not establish her own notability.
2. The focus of this is a segment of This Week and its portrayal of Arab and Muslim women, not on Salbi. As you said too, she was interviewed, and the paper mentions Salbi a few times trivially, which does not add to notability. 9 of the name drops are trivial and one of them is a word in a website URL. A couple brief mentions of her appearance on a talk show and mentioning delivering "the typical speech about putting women rights at the forefront of a country’s rights" and that she got 130 seconds of airtime (among the other women who were on the show) does not demonstrate notability.
3. This is a Foucauldian analysis of a theme in Between Two Worlds, and doesn't establish her notability or what makes the book significant. The existence of this source may add to the book's notability, but not to the significance necessary of WP:AUTHOR or demonstrates notability. I can't find anything on the reliability of the journal or author either.
Please note that a book having a couple sources mentioning it or analyzing it in some way is not what WP:AUTHOR is about. The book has to be significant. The Lord of the Rings is significant being one of the most defining works of fiction in the modern era, while Bored of the Rings may be notable but not significant. It isn't demonstrated that Between Two Worlds is significant among memoirs such as the Pulitzer Prize winning The Return (memoir) or in general, but separately, maybe the case can be made that Between Two Worlds is notable per WP:NBOOK.
That is, WP:AUTHOR, and relevant to this "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work", is not met. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:52, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. There is detailed analysis about her work that represents significant coverage in reliable an independent sources, she seems notable to me. CT55555(talk) 15:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the WP:AUTHOR case did not hold merit, what is this "significant coverage in reliable and independent sources" that doesn't actually fit into the categories not establishing notability described in the nom? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 17:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of an author's work does not equal notability for the author. DS (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NAUTHOR#3 includes has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews... and per the reviews added to the article, she has two books that are the primary subject of multiple reviews, so she appears to be notable for her collective body of work, in addition to WP:BASIC notability supported by multiple independent and reliable sources over time that report and comment on her, including her work as a writer, talk show host, and humanitarian. Beccaynr (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "reviews" part is in the "In addition," part and separate from "significant work". It's not demonstrated that a few brief book reviews makes a book significant. However, it may be argued that it can lend towards the book's notability WP:NBOOK. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline refers to a significant or well-known workorcollective body of work and multiple reviews, so the 8 reviews for Between Two Worlds and 3 for The Other Side of War in the article support her notability per the WP:BIO guideline - she has created more than one notable work per the WP:NBOOK guideline, so her WP:AUTHOR notability is supported. Beccaynr (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google News search on Salbi's name turns up 1,150 items and a search in the Wikipedia Library turns up 1,352 items. While the article needs more citations, there's plenty of coverage out there of Salbi including in the Sydney Morning Herald, NPR, Publisher's Weekly, Forbes Magazine (plus this interview in Forbes), The Guardian, The Daily Beast, and so many other media outlets I'm not going to even attempt to list them all. Note that the sources I provided dispute the claim that Salbi's citations are all "primary, unreliable, and/or affiliated" or only brief mentions. Second, while there might have been some COI edits to the article, a look at the article's history shows that the vast majority of edits here have not been COI. Finally, the honors that Salbi has received would by themselves prove notability even without all the citations supporting the same. In short, Salbi easily meets multiple Wikipedia guidelines regarding notability and this article should never have been brought up for an AfD.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thanks for your comment but this type of sourcing was directly addressed in the nom and does not establish notability, and coverage is not what this is about. Regarding your comment's first sentence, please see WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Next, every source you listed except for one is a primary source and/or are completely dependent on the subject, which do not add notability, and is exactly one of the issues mentioned in the nom. Primary as in the interview or talk is the original material and not independent as in dependent on the subject herself. Semantics aside, the sources are directly dependent on her. The other source is two sentences about her. WP:NBIO is clear that primary sources do not help contribute to notability and that sources be independent of the subject. WP:RS makes it clear sources need to be editorially independent of the subject. Interviews are effectively co-written by the subject (even if it's the journalist doing the transcribing) they are not independent and not useful for notability for a BLP. An interview or talk by the subject like these is not independent.
Video talk by Salbi (nothing independent about Salbi herself giving a talk): NPR
Two short sentences saying practically nothing about Salbi (eg. "Salbi has been on a quest to understand the connection between who we have been and who we must become") with two sentences on FindCare.com: Forbes Magazine
There isn't anything showing the notability of the awards or "well-known and significant award", which in addition, most of which have been added as WP:OR (and may have been later picked up by other websites like those self-published profiles) and most of which are magazine lists which are not significant. A Pulitzer Prize, Nobel Peace Prize, or similar would be significant and add to notability.
"Note that the sources I provided dispute the claim that Salbi's citations are all "primary, unreliable, and/or affiliated" or only brief mentions"
Quoting this directly to conclude with emphasis that the sources you provided support the claim of primary sourcing or sources not independent of the subject, or brief mentions. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 18:33, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this essay about identifying and using primary sources on Wikipedia and reliable sources guidelines because you do not seem to understand how all this works. I shared a range of the articles I found and yes, a few were interviews with Salbi. But the Guardian and Daily Beast articles were profiles of her. Just because an article contains quotes from her doesn't make it an interview. And primary sources like interviews are not prohibited on Wikipedia (as per the guidelines linked to earlier). As for the Forbes article, it's naming her as one of the world's innovative leaders, which is a good indication of notability. And again, all that's merely a tiny bit of the news coverage Salbi has received (see Beccaynr's comment below for more of them, and even then that's not all of the news coverage out there about Salbi). And I didn't say she'd won a well-known award, I said the "honors" she'd received proved notability. Per guidelines, a "significant award or honor" can prove notability and the totality of the honors she has received prove this.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the sources you provided are all interviews plus the addition of the talk by Salbi and the source with the couple trivial sentences about her "quest to understand ... who we must become".
From the essay about identifying and using primary sources on Wikipedia, it posts the question: "Is this source independent or third-party, or is it closely affiliated with the subject?". The answer for the sources you linked is a strong no. This does not support the position of independence.
- "Just because an article contains quotes from her doesn't make it an interview"
These aren't merely "quotes from her", like from a separate event or situation. These were quotes as part of the interview provided by Salbi to the publication. It's entirely dependent on the subject and is the very event of interviewing Salbi. Both sources you linked fitting this category are the Guardian article[14], which is not a straight transcribing of the full interview (instead a mix of prose and quotes from the interview) but is kind enough to explicitly put the "Interview" label on the article, and The Daily Beast[15] which makes it explicitly clear too such "Salbi explains, over the phone from Dubai" (ie. this is Salbi doing an interview over the phone with The Daily Beast).
- "And I didn't say she'd won a well-known award, I said the "honors" she'd received proved notability"
This statement is in construction to WP:ANYBIO: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". A mix of magazine lists and little-known or insignificant awards (assuming none of this is OR) does not achieve this. "totality of the honors she has received prove this" is a stretch, if not outright not fitting, the policy.
- "As for the Forbes article, it's naming her as one of the world's innovative leaders"
If you're referring to the article title, it is specifically "Women’s History Month - Meet Today’s Innovative Leaders", very briefly (in a few sentences) describing 13 women and for Salbi, not describing her innovating anything "today" really except a website in beta that she's a part of that with the extreme claim "one of the largest collections of wisdom of all time", which is a paraphrase of what the website says about itself.[16][17]. The list isn't an award or anything well-known either.
Finally, I want to emphasize, what you said is not an interview, The Guardian[18] very explicitly labels as an interview. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:12, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The PBS series appearance is a brief video interview with the subject herself. The Guardian interview, is just that, an interview with Salbi and is labeled at the top of the article. This is precisely what WP:BASIC warns against. Interviews are in no way independent of the subject, and on primary sources such as these interviews, "do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thanks for your comment. As pointed out in the nom and my reply to SouthernNights, interview sources do not demonstrate notability according to WP:NBASIC/WP:GNG especially considering they are not independent of the subject. WP:RS too makes it clear sources need to be editorially independent of the subject and interviews are not independent. Every source you linked (prior to the book reviews) is directly dependent on Salbi. The "biographical and career coverage" is Salbi talking about herself.
WP:GNG/WP:BASIC do not accept such sources for notability, since we need "secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject".
The other 6 links are all mixed prose/interview pieces with Salbi (interviews that mix prose by the journalist with the direct quotes of the interviewee, which are also non-independent sources and don't provide notability), including both of The Guardian interviews by Homa Khaleeli[19][20] (The Guardian kindly puts in bold at the top that these are interviews too), the Time interview, [21], the Harpers Bazaar interview, [22], the Vanity Fair interview [23], and the Bon Appetit interview [24].
The brief book reviews Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews, may be argued to contribute to the notability of the book Between Two Worlds itself per WP:NBOOK, but it isn't demonstrated to be significant as required by WP:AUTHOR. Pulitzer Prize winning The Return (memoir) is an example of a significant work that would lend towards WP:AUTHOR. See this diff for more explanation about that [25]. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:19, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Saucysalsa30: As I mentioned above, you are incorrect when you say interview sources can not demonstrate notability because "they are not independent of the subject." That is not how reliable source guidelines work on Wikipedia. And merely because a news profile of someone like Salbi contains quotes from that person does not magically transform a reliable source into something that can't be used. And it makes no sense when you say interviews are not editorially independent of the subject. A media outlet's editorial process and editors are not suddenly taken over and controlled by someone when they are interviewed by that outlet. --SouthernNights (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SouthernNights Thanks for your comment. I've already explained all this with notability guidelines in full, including my response to your latest comment[26]. This comment seems to confuse WP:RS with notability criteria. Claiming that sources not independent on the subject and/or primary add notability is in direct contradiction to WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. Apart from the mostly direct transcribed interviews, regarding the interview sourcing that "contains [extensive] quotes", those were interviews too, and were explicitly labeled as such by the publication.
Your case to this point has been WP:LOTSOFSOURCES[27] and the incorrect claim that sources already demonstrated or explicitly stating themselves as directly dependent on the subject and/or primary provide notability. I will leave a couple quotes from WP:NBASIC rehashing everything else I've said in response to you.
What notability criteria requires: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
"Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject."
As we both agree, the sourcing is dependent on the subject and consequently does not fit the necessary criteria, nor does a source like the trivial sentence about "the connection between who we have been and who we must become" demonstrate any notability. Please see the essay on no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. This is the point that the AfD discussion has come to. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since almost every source provided in the "Keep" comments have been interviews (other than talks by Salbi herself, book reviews (more relevant to the book itself) and a trivial source), the Wikipedia essay on interviews provides some clarity.
"The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source and is also non-independent material. Considering these interviews with Salbi are about Salbi and her life and experiences and are being used as sources about her specifically, they absolutely are not independent of her, which does not meet the criteria required by WP:ANYBIO. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, interviews are bad for verifiability, especially bolder claims, but nothing prohibits them from being used to assess notability. Please be mindful of advice contained within WP:BLUDGEON. I think, at this point, the people who disagree with you understand the point that has been made. CT55555(talk) 22:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you CT5555. I respect your understanding and (sincerely) thanks for the advice (which I and others here are becoming guilty of). One small clarification: Wikipedia notability policy doesn't prohibit using interviews in general, but it is clear that sources being both independent of the subject and secondary (among other things) are necessary for presuming notability, and more bluntly that primary sourcing does not contribute to proving notability. Cheers Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:38, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555: - That's exactly backwards. An interview with X is great for reliability about X says about themselves, and terrible for notability about X. Notability is external attention. On the -help channel, we constantly have to explain to people that getting yourself interviewed in a magazine, even a reputable one, is not in itself enough for notability. Even if it's multiple magazines. DS (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Final comment on sources: Saucysalsa30 is not correct in how they understand primary sources and is misstating Wikipedia guidelines. For example, this statement shared by Saucysalsa30 is from a Wikipedia guideline but is being used in this case in a wrong manner: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." What that statement means is someone's personal website or, in this case, the website and publications of Women for Women International, could be used to provide biographical info on a subject but could not be used to prove notability. That means if the only sources proving Salbi's notability were the content of her books and her organization's website, then yes, they would not count. But the many media sources listed by people in this AfD, such as The Sydney Morning Herald, NPR, Publisher's Weekly, Forbes Magazine, The Guardian, The Daily Beast, Time, Harper's Bazaar Arabia, and so on, are exactly what is meant by "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Salbi does not control any part of these media outlets, including their editorial work. While Saucysalsa30 appears to be attempting to WP:BLUDGEON everyone here who points out the many reliable media sources proving notability -- again, a Google News search on Salbi's name turns up 1,150 items and a search in the Wikipedia Library turns up 1,352 items -- that doesn't change the either the sources themselves or how Wikipedia's guidelines are applied in a case like this.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the WP Library, sources include but are not limited to:
"Zainab Salbi, the story of a Muslim who knows of war but strives for peace", Yemen Times (Sana'a, Yemen), Oct. 11, 2010, 1250 words, (via Gale) e.g. "Zainab Salbi is one of the extraordinary examples of how passion coupled with hard-work can move mountains." [...] "Women for Women International's programs in Iraq have received a grant totaling more than USD 970,000. The grant will provide job-skills training and rights awareness programming to Iraqi war widows and female heads of households--a total of 2,500 women. The latter make up 60 percent of Women for Women International's programs in Iraq and care for an average of three children and live in poverty."
"Zainab Salbi" Newsmakers 2008, 1,676 words (via Gale), e.g. "After the United States invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam from power in 2003, she went back to her native country to visit several times. She also expanded the scope of Women for Women to include Iraq after the initial war ended; however, because of safety concerns for women and staff in Iraq, the sponsorship program could not operate there." This source includes biographical and career details, awards, and other writings.
"Iraqi-Born Charity Worker Strives to Empower Women" Chronicle of Philanthropy 3/9/2006, Vol. 18, Issue 10 (via EBSCOhost), e.g. "Women for Women, which maintains a staff of slightly more than 20 local employees in Iraq, operates a low-profile program in the southern part of the country to train women in job skills--and is considering whether it is safe enough to start a microcredit program to provide small loans to help women start or improve businesses." [...] She founded Women for Women in 1993 after reading about rape victims during the wars in Bosnia and Croatia. The nonprofit group has grown fast since then, aided partly by six appearances by Ms. Salbi on Oprah Winfrey's television show. With programs in nine countries, its revenue has jumped from $2.7-million in 2002 to a projected $18-million this year."
A review of Between Two Worlds, in Library Journal 8/15/2005, Vol. 130, Issue 13 (via EBSCOhost)
"Zainab Salbi" Gale Literature: Contemporary Authors Oct. 3, 2006, 397 words (via Gale) (includes education details)
A review of Between Two Worlds: "truth be told; Two memoirs burst with the immediacy of news headlines" Vogue Nov. 2005 (via Gale) e.g. "Within months of Hussein's arrest she began writing Between Two Worlds: Escaping from Tyranny: Growing Up in the Shadow of Saddam (Gotham Books), her fearlessly candid memoir about weathering the eighties under his tyrannical thumb. "I knew that what I wrote would impact my whole family's honor," she writes. "But there was no honor, I thought, in silence." Her book, a torrent of vividly recalled memories, reads with the sort of artless verve that can come only from one who's been unshackled from a lifetime of repression."
A review of The Other Side of War: Women's Stories of Survival & Hope Mitchell, Penni. Herizons. Summer2007, Vol. 21 Issue 1, p49 (via EBSCOhost)
"Women for Women Wins Hilton Humanitarian Prize" Hanley, Delinda C., Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Dec2006, Vol. 25, Issue 9 (vi EBSCOhost) e.g. "In accepting the prize, Zainab Salbi, Women for Women International's Iraqiborn founder and president, said: [...] Salbi is an expert when it cornes to helping women voice their concerns. Her second book, The Other Side of War: Women's Stories of Survival and Hope (published by National Geographic and available from the AET Book Club) relates tales of unthinkable brutality, as well as courage, healing and renewal."
Hello, thanks for the courtesy tag, but you more or less repeat what you had said in your last comment. I've previously addressed most of this in prior comments, but the "many sources exist" argument is exactly one that is warned to avoid. The numbers given are in error. It's 260 for Google News (proof) and 852 for Wikipedia Library (proof). I went through all the search pages to the end. The initial search number does say 1150 at the top when you enter a search term but is not necessarily accurate because it includes duplicate, cached, and other erroneous results. It's a search engine quirk. Most of these are some combination of no more than a name drop or other trivial coverage, unknown reliability, or directly depend on her or affiliated with her too.
"The Sydney Morning Herald, ... and so on, are exactly what is meant by "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.""
As we both have agreed, these are all interviews with her about her. However, the interpretation of interviews being independent and not primary is not supported in notability guidelines or explanatory material. The interview sources provided are not independent (subject talking about the subject) and generally primary or may included limited secondary information. As Wikipedia:Interviews puts it, "The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source and is also non-independent material." Which Wikipedia notability criteria supports primary/non-independent material as providing notability? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing for this article is terrible. +90% of its content is unsourced, and that which is sourced is super minor ("#37 on Gulf Business's top 100 most powerful Arabs for 2019" - that's not nothing, but it's not enough). If I were to remove all the uncited content there would be almost nothing left. Reviews of Ms. Salbi's books are excellent for showing notability of the books, but she is not the books and they are not her. Interviews by Ms. Salbi are her talking about herself; as such, they are an excellent source for facts and a terrible source for notability, regardless of the merits of the publication in which they appear. "This one isn't an interview - it's a profile of her that includes a few quotes." Maybe, maybe not, but it's not cited. Can this article be salvaged? I don't know, but of the people who are asserting that Ms. Salbi meets notability, only one of you has made the slightest attempt to improve the article, and that was only by adding links to reviews of Ms. Salbi's books, so that's not enough. "Here are all these sources I found!" you say. Good: integrate them into the text. If you can't find sources to support the statements in the article, remove them. If you don't care enough about the article to improve it other than by stating it's salvageable, it'll get deleted. DS (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I try to demonstrate that I care enough about the article by finding sources to support notability per WP:NEXIST as well as for developing an article about the subject, which includes her career and her writing, e.g. her books, including her memoir. There are many sources cited in this discussion, and it may take some time to integrate them into the article, but many are directly available for review.
And when I review sources with interview content for BLPs, I make a distinction between basic Q&As and the independent and reliable sources that integrate secondary context and commentary about the subject, which from my view, can help build the article and also help support WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 23:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I probably will make an effort to improve the article. But I might also wait to see how the AFD turns out (putting effort in to something that may get deleted isn't an attractive task), and also I might prioritise personal life stuff over this during the holiday season. And anyone can improve the article with the sources presented, not just the people who put effort into finding them. I note that @Beccaynr obviously puts lots of time into improving articles that are at AFD (thanks!) and I do too, but I hope you might have some sympathy that with about 50 nominations a day, time is finite. CT55555(talk) 23:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"I won't put effort into it if it'll just get deleted"
and then it gets deleted because no one put effort into it. DS (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, at AFD we should judge notability on what is available, not what is in the article, so you're probably wrong about that. CT55555(talk) 01:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DragonflySixtyseven: Thanks for your comment, currently the page appears to have been somewhat improved since the AfD nomination. Thanks. VickKiang(talk) 05:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, User:Saucysalsa30 you've already commented to this discussion many times. Your points are insightful, and unfortunately I often post long comments, but it might be better for some uninvolved editors to opine. I understand my opinion is probably controversial, and you will disagree with my interpretation and respond, but I think you've already iterated your points across- regarding that WP:NAUTHOR's requirements of significance or well-known only includes highly prominent work (i.e., major award, literary significance) in your opinion. This intepretation is reasonable, though I respectfully disagree. I have no opinion on whether this passes WP:BASIC otherwise. VickKiang(talk) 04:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thanks for the tag and the Talk sectoin link. It appears you may be partially misrepresenting my opinion and notability policy to an extent, but I agree WP:AUTHOR needs to be more clear if editors are confusing it to be synonymous with WP:NBOOK Criteria #1.
From WP:NAUTHOR"The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." is not demonstrated here nor elsewhere on the AfD and stretching WP:NBOOK to be synonymous with it is not right. The "two reviews" line better fits WP:NBOOK criteria: "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.".
To quote a couple other's explanations from elsewhere in the AfD, "Coverage of an author's work does not equal notability for the author."[28] and "Reviews of Ms. Salbi's books are excellent for showing notability of the books, but she is not the books and they are not her"[29]. Conflating WP:NBOOK with WP:NAUTHOR is a big stretch, and by that interpretation, almost every book that meets WP:NBOOK satisfies WP:NAUTHOR for the author too. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 07:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I have, in my vote, explained that I anticipate this long reply, similar to the lengthy replies to the other votes. IMO you've made your points thoroughly across, you don't need to repeat the explanations in the talk page, I have already read them. misrepresenting- I haven't misrepresented your opinion. To quote from yourself, The brief book reviews Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews, may be argued to contribute to the notability of the book Between Two Worlds itself per WP:NBOOK, but it isn't demonstrated to be significant as required by WP:AUTHOR. Pulitzer Prize winning The Return (memoir) is an example of a significant work that would lend towards WP:AUTHOR. See this diff for more explanation about that. You considered a Pultizer-Prize winning book and a book with literary significance as meeting this criterion, The Lord of the Rings. If it's possible, can you explain the criterion you believe that satisfies significant or well-known, which is the first part?
I disagree your statement that various other editors (User:Beccaynr, User:SouthernNights, who you disagreed), are conflating and confusing policy regarding NAUTHOR and NBOOK. Your perspective and User:DragonflySixtyseven are reasonable and policy-based, I just respectfully disagree. I've read your insightful commentary in the discussion prior to my vote, though do reply to this part if you have anything new. Many thanks! VickKiang(talk) 07:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also pertaining is the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2022#Well-known, significant and notable. It's mainly about filmmakers, not authors but is about the same criteria, and participants disagreed on how to interpret it. I had a read and there doesn't appear to be clear consensus over that the argument that this criteria is similar to WP's definition of notability would be egregiously wrong. Though, of course you will disagree and I appreciate your work, thanks. VickKiang(talk) 08:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR. I started adding in adding in sources, primarily focusing on the items listed in the awards sections. DaffodilOcean (talk) 05:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough for at least WP:BASIC, maybe WP:GNG, and less likely but maybe WP:CREATIVE (important figure; significant critical attention). —Alalch E. 12:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This individual clearly meets our notability criteria per WP:BASIC. Whatever state the article was in at the inception of this AfD has no bearing on the outcome, as long as sources are found. They have been, and are listed above in the various participants notes. Netherzone (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is in good shape now, meets WP:GNGLajmmoore (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to meet GNG. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 27 December 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.