This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
On the available evidence including her website and writings, yes. Do you think she's not? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 11:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
She's a western muslim; meaning she can write about sex ;)Isabelle 67 (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a western or eastern Muslim. She is a Muslim (brought up in Bangladeshi Muslim family), as she says herself in various articles in the Guardian. Whatever she writes about in her stories or articles, does not affect her beliefs. Mohsin (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC) 
Quite so. I was answering the other poster who implied that because of her coming to prominence with western attitudes if she could still be called a 'muslim'. I concur with you thou, she is of course a muslim.Isabelle 67 (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is any reference to the offensive twitter comments this woman made on 1st July 2011 in response to the deaths of 3 gap year students instantly removed? They are clear as day on her twitter account.
You are correct, it is a legitimate edit. I have placed a reference against your post so there shouldn't be any need to debate the matter further. Ganglandboss (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Why does this page even exist, seems to me anyone can have a wiki page these days. shameful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapidlaser (talk • contribs) 21:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, it seems to have been here since 16 February 2006 (see revision history though you can't always 100% trust it I think). Of course long life of an article is no guarantee but is maybe not wholly insignificant either. It seems to satisfy the policy on Notability. However, if you think it doesn't, then this section of that policy gives information on how to challenge its existence and try to get it deleted. Hope this helps, best wishes, DBaK (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the 'Quotes' section of this article, as it doesn't really belong here: lists of personal quotes belong on Wikiquote, not Wikipedia. They're only worth mentioning here if they're particularly significant. In this case, the only quote of hers that's received comment from third parties is the 'gap year' one; but as that's already mentioned above in the article, I removed it as well. Robofish (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Good move - now you mention it, it was a bit nonstandard and (perhaps) promotional-looking, and I agree the article looks better without. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Creation of a new section "Twitter Controversy"
I think it would make sense to create a new section that covers the twitter incident as I don't believe it actually falls as part of her career. Do you not think it is appropriate to add a new section specifically for it? Livebythe (talk) 00:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
No, not really. I feel as it it would give undue weight to this one thing. It's just another thing that she did - we don't need a separate section for each book or job either; and we won't need a separate section for the next thing that she does either, whether it is good or bad, unless it is truly a quite separate thing in some astonishing way. It would make it a very strange and unbalanced article if we did this. As for the career thing, well yes I think it probably does - it was only relevant because she was already in the public eye - if you or I had put our feet in our mouths like that no-one much one have given a monkey's, but she attracted attention because she was already known. And the people calling for her to be sacked obviously thought it was a career thing, or they wouldn't have put such effort, it seems to me, into calling for her sacking. So no, I think it's fine how it is - it is there for all to read, and is not unduly prominent. I don't see why a new section is necessary or desirable. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I don't want to start a big fight but why, if the bit about "her Dad's death made a big impression" is not worth including, is the bit about "she is jolly clever but didn't think Mensa much cop" worth having in? They seem much of a muchness to me - they are both vague backgroundy stuff, could both claim some relevance to her writing or her life an ting, both look a bit like we haven't got quite enough for the article, etc. As I say I am not about to start World War III over the elfin literary superstar but I just wondered where we are going with this, or could be or should be. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I removed the "dad died" bit per the above. Happy to discuss. Do we really need the Mensa bit ... is it notable?
PSWP:MOS re titles? Seems to be an odd mixture of quote marks, italics etc at present. DBaK (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)