Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruby Hamad

Ruby Hamad

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Ruby Hamad (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)

This page was nominated at the subject's request. Ruby Hamad is a "not particularly well-known" journalist in Australia. She expressed to me (via Facebook) that she believes the page was created purely as a form of trolling, and the history of the page does indicate a lot of unsourced negative commentary (since removed). My own research does tend to support the idea that she is not sufficiently notable to have her own page. Most of the references are to the journalist's own work and not to any 3rd party source. Manning (talk) 10:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Based on the included references this page doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria set out in Wikipedia:BASIC or Wikipedia:AUTHOR, almost all of the references that are not dead links being links to non-Wikipedia articles by Ruby Hamad herself. Daneark (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC) — Daneark (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable journalist. We really need to pub more stringent rules on article creation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with Daneark this page doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria set out in Wikipedia:BASIC or Wikipedia:AUTHOR - but would also add Wikipedia:NACADEMIC. Tastyworm (talk) 09:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:AUTHOR. Her book White Tears/Brown Scars has been widely reviewed. egs. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Which of the criteria in Wikipedia:AUTHOR do you feel she meets? I can't see any mention of that book at all on her wikipedia page which seems like a strange omission given how much reading must have been done for the personal life section, now heavily cut down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daneark (talk • contribs) 17:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The bit about the authors work getting critical attention. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete. The subject of the article, as an articulate and forthright woman of Syrian origins, has been subjected to a series of relentless on line attacks of which this article was one. It is not research, it is a form of cyberstalking that does nothing for wikipedias reputation. She wants it gone. PierreABCD (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PierreABCD (talk • contribs) 09:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC) — PierreABCD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete. I'd never heard of Ruby (and I'm Australian). Nothing in the page, or in a thorough ProQuest News search, indicates she meets WP:NOTE. Cabrils (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

OK user:Cabrils, so you've commented purely on what's currently in the article. How about now consider what is not currently there. Such as her book and the coverage that has generated such as the above provided links. I suggest that as we should be looking at the notability of the subject and not just the current state of the article which can be changed. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Duffbeerforme: Duff, I respect your voluminous and significant contributions here. I accept that there has been coverage of her book. I conducted a search via ProQuest for news articles in Australia and New Zealand which returned 79 results, many of which were short articles she had authored or were extremely short, insignificant passing mentions, IMHO failing WP:RS. I have often tried to save pages from deletion by way of WP:HEY but in this case I admit to being less inclined to do so because of Manning's explanation, which is convincing. In any event, as I said, a ProQuest search did not return any results I felt comfotable adding as relevant citations. Cabrils (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete This page does not meet the notability criteria set out in Wikipedia:BASIC or Wikipedia:AUTHOR nor has her book has not been reviewed by any serious publication aside indie-blogs. Furthermore, links on this page lead to non-Wikipedia articles written by Ruby Hamad herself. However, her requests that she 'wants this page gone' should not influence this discussion as Ruby has attracted criticism through her own actions by making inflammatory claims with articles such as 'white women use strategic tears to silence women of colour'. Like any other individual online, she should not be free from being criticised for her words or actions, especially if they are intended to cause controversy. User:PierreABCD's comment that she is 'an articulate and forthright woman of Syrian origins' shows clear favoritism bias and holds no relevance to this discussion.

• Delete on the sole grounds that she's requested it on the grounds of ongoing BLP issues. She's a prominent columnist and successful published author and most of the arguments being given about objective notability above are nonsense (as Duffbeerforme illustrates with sources above), but since I suppose it's like, 1% arguable I'd agree with deferring to her wishes. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with duffbeerforme that her book, her other writing, her panel appearances etc, have received a lot of attention. I believe that she meets WP:AUTHOR / WP:GNG, and it's disappointing that some editors are !voting based on what's on the page and have not considered the sources which have been provided here. I also agree with The Drover's Wife - if the subject has made a genuine request for deletion on the grounds of the article being used to attack her, either the article needs protection, or it should be deleted. Some of the polarisation of debate seems to appear in this AfD discussion too, unfortunately. (Who are the anonymous editors who manage to avoid sinebot?) RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I am the subject of this article (I had nothing to do with its creation). I want to point out that it has now been nine days of discussion when the process is only meant to take seven. In that time the section on 'criticism' which is clearly defamatory, unsourced (other than to mostly anonymous comments on Twitter which are not verifiable), is ideologically rather than factually driven, is not neutral in tone, and is not in any way objective or informative, has been deleted and reinserted at least twice. This page and entire discussion is in violation of Wikipedia's own rules and standards. Please make a decision on this and act accordingly as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RHWriter (talk • contribs) 23:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)