Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamila Musayeva

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. ✗plicit 13:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamila Musayeva

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources cited in the article do not meet WP:SIGCOV. They include blogs, Medium posts, interviews, and primarily passing mentions. The article from The Caspian Post appears promotional or sponsored to me, and we also lack consensus on its reliability. Even if we ignore that, a single article cannot establish notability for the subject. I searched for more reliable sources with significant coverage but was unable to find any, only passing mentions similar to what is already in the article. The subject also fails to meet WP:AUTHOR, as their books have not been reviewed by multiple reliable sources. GrabUp - Talk 09:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, and Azerbaijan. GrabUp - Talk 09:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m an author of this article. I’m willing to respond to every argument.

Before publishing the article, I have read WP:AUTHOR (Wikipedia’s Notability Guideline, section "Creative professionals"). According to this section, a person is notable if "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". My article meets this criterion, because of following reasons: (1) First of all, Musayeva is interviewed and/or cited as an expert by the mainstream media mentioned in the article (Bussiness Insider, Newsweek, Fox News and others). This means that these big media companies recognize her position as an authority on the subject. (2) Secondly, she is a YouTuber with over million of subscribers and over 40 million views of her videos, which are big numbers, especially given the fact that etiquette is not a common interest. This establishes her as one of the most popular/successful etiquette experts in the world. Isn’t that enough to claim she is notable?

(3) Moreover, the article is about her, not about her books.

I have used multiple secondary and independent sources, mostly interviews with her (which is understandable, because the interviews with a creative person are often the most fruitful source about their lives and achievements). Half of the sources are mainstream media outlets such as Fox News, Daily Mail and WFLA-TV.

I didn’t include any self-published source.

I have used two sources published by the subject of the article, which is permitted. There is no doubt to the authenticy of these sources, as they were published on the official page of the subject of the article. Moreover, the article is not based primarily on such sources (there are only two).

I tried my best to meet the Wikipedia's Guidelines.

I will be taking care of the article. She is getting more and more recognition from the media every year. There will be more sources coming in the near future. I will be updating the article and bettering it. But please don't delete my work. Mlody1312 (talk) 09:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mlody1312: If you want to work on this article, draftification can be done. However, interviews, sources claiming the subject as an expert, and view numbers alone do not make the subject notable. What’s your opinion on draftification? Please let me know. GrabUp - Talk 09:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked on this article for almost two weeks in my draftspace and for now there is no more information that can be added to the article. I tried my best to make the article as informative as it was possible, in order to give the readers a full understanding of who the described person is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals

According to the Wikipedia's Notability (People) Guideline, Jamila falls into the section/category of "Creative professionals". This particular section "applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals" (exact quote).

She belongs to this category, because she is not only an author of books, but also a videoblogger/a YouTuber.

In the next passage the criteria of notability are listed, and it says that the person is notable when "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" (exact quote).

The subject of the article meets this criteria. She is regarded as an important figure, i.e. an authority on etiquette. She is cited by multiple media outlets and invited to television. She gets media coverage for what she does professionally.

Moving on to the next point, of course view numbers on YouTube is not the only thing contributing to her notability, but is definitely an important one. There is a whole category in Wikipedia dedicated to YouTubers. I think having over 1 million subscribers and over 40 million views is big enough to be included into "YouTubers" category. There are subjects that have smaller numbers and still are included. Examples are: James Frederick, Matt Baume or RinRin Doll.

I feel like my article is criticised quite harshly, especially in comparison to other articles from similar categories. For example:

• Thomas_Farley (manners expert) (almost no linking to sources)

• Mary Killen (small number of sources)

• John Morgan (etiquette expert) (small number of sources)

• Judith Martin (here we have some interviews with the subject used as sources as well, and it seems like it doesn’t bother anyone; interviews with the subjects are really fruitful sources of information about such individuals)

Your statement about "primarily passing mentions" is not wholly fair, it diminishes her media presence to some extent. In the sources I gave she is asked for her opinions and suggestions as an expert and is cited as such. Most of these sources are full-talk interviews, and in others, her answers take up much of the space.

As she is getting more media recognition every month, more media coverage is coming in anytime soon. I will be happy to expand and improve this article. Please don’t delete my work. Mlody1312 (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, ‘As she is getting more media recognition every month, more media coverage is likely to come soon. I will be happy to expand and improve this article. Please don’t delete my work.’ That’s why I proposed draftification. If significant coverage comes in the future, then it can be submitted for AfC review. Currently, I don’t believe the article meets notability. The additional criteria you’re quoting do not inherently make a subject notable, as it says: ‘People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.’ GrabUp - Talk 15:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mlody1312: Also, please avoid WP:WHATABOUT arguments. If you believe those articles do not meet notability guidelines, you can start a discussion. GrabUp - Talk 15:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for using WP:WHATABOUT arguments. I stand my ground when it comes to other arguments, included those on notability. I already gave my reasons and arguments for keeping this article, and I guess that’s all I could do. Maybe let’s wait for other users to join the discussion. Mlody1312 (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above indicates TOOSOON. Not notable at this time. Oaktree b (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't find any book reviews, so likely doesn't pass AUTHOR. The sources used are either red as non-RS or orange (iffy) per Source Highlighter. My search only brings up where to buy the book and primary sources. I don't see anything we can use to prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are reader reviews on goodreads and amazon. But anyway, this article is not about her books. The books are just one of many elements that make up the whole article. If I were going to write an article about any of her books, then requiring more reviews would be justified. Mlody1312 (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User ratings mean nothing to us. If you can find two or more critical reviews of any of her books from reliable secondary sources, she will meet the criteria for WP:AUTHOR. GrabUp - Talk 07:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources used are not the best, especially LinkedIn. If a profile was done that wasn't just the interview, it could meet notability, but I don't think it meets it in the current state. As the author of this page has said, she is getting more media attention as the months pass, so at some point, she will have a New Yorker or some other news/magazine profile done. When that happens, the page could come back up (with the removal of not great sources and an overall better flow). Bpuddin (talk) 07:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#LinkedIn

In accordance with this section of the guideline, using LinkedIn is permitted "as self-published, primary sources, but only if they can be authenticated as belonging to the subject", which they are in case of my article. Mlody1312 (talk) 07:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published and primary sources do not help establish notability at all. GrabUp - Talk 07:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability, in this case, is established by the fact that mainstream media outlets recognize her position as an authority on the topic of etiquette; she is interviewed and cited as an expert; she gets media coverage for what she does professionally.

LinkedIn can be used "As a reliable source sometimes. LinkedIn pages may be used as self-published, primary sources, but only if they can be authenticated as belonging to the subject." (exact quote)

They are proven authentic, because they were posted on the offical page of the subject. Mlody1312 (talk) 07:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Perennial website page also states for LinkedIn, "Common Issues - Wikipedia is not a directory of any subject's complete web presence, and links to social networking sites (other than official links) are discouraged...As a reliable source, LinkedIn is problematic in the same ways as MySpace, Facebook, etc. as self-published and unverifiable, unreliable content."

The overall problem I find with the page is the use of not reliable sources that are just conversations with Ms. Musayeva or are her own websites. Like LinkendIn, the Authority Magazine interview, the Wonder Woman Mag interview, Melissa Ambrosini interview, The British Protocol Academy source, Unconventional Life - Podcast, the Caspian Post article, the MITH Q&A, I AM CEO Podcast, Mail Online, and jamilamusayeva.com are all not fact checked or sourced articles, which is the overwhelming majority of this page.

I still believe the page should be deleted and can be republished if there are better sourced news articles/profiles done.

- Bpuddin (talk) 08:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The creator has canvassed 15 editors asking for help. Their message to me, at least, was neutral and transparent and I don't think they could have assumed that I would !vote keep, so I haven't recused myself. My gut feel is that the subject of the article is determined to raise their profile, hence appearing as a guest on several podcasts cited in the article. Given this new editor is an WP:SPA I am going to assume that this is an undeclared paid piece. I have expanded about half of the references in the article to tag which ones are interviews as part of my review of their content. I have not come across any content in those references that indicates notability. Everything I've read or heard are interviews, or her expressing her opinions, rather than WP:INDEPTH, WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:SECONDARY coverage by WP:RELIABLE sources about her. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but these accusations are ridiculous. I have a Wikipedia account since 2019. I never created any article before because I had no need to. I'm just an appreciator of Ms. Musayeva's work, one of her viewers, and that's why I wanted to create an article about her. Mlody1312 (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mlody1312 I'm, puzzled: what led you to create an account on 24 November 2019 (as I see you did) but then not to make any edits at all until this month? PamD 12:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said, I had no need to. Why does it bother you so much? Mlody1312 (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't understand why anyone would trouble to create an account unless they intended to start editing there and then: you "had no need" to create the account. PamD 16:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, it wasn't a trouble. Mlody1312 (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Mlody1312 What source do you have for her date of birth? It may be in one of the many references, but please save me the time of reading through them all by adding a reference to show that it is available in a reliable independent published source. Thanks. PamD 12:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She has made posts related to her birthday on Instagram.

Not every biographical article has a reference to a birth date, even though the birth date is known. And since it is known, I don't see why not to add this information. Mlody1312 (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I've removed the birth date but replaced it with an approximate one from the statement that she was 31 in the Mekhdi ref. "It is known" is not an adequate source. PamD 16:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, you have changed the correct information to the incorrect one. I've told you my source, it's her Instagram. Literally 10 seconds of searching in Google:

https://www.instagram.com/jamila_musayeva/p/C9sGJWguyvi/?img_index=1 Mlody1312 (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.google.com/search?q=+jamila+musayeva+celebrating+33&sca_esv=6298c17d4a9e2aad&rlz=1C1CHBD_plPL1067PL1067&sxsrf=ADLYWIJKBP1opZEg0zH1u8zP72Iz_AtcbA%3A1729356746129&ei=yuMTZ4zCB4XOwPAPr5qruAg&ved=0ahUKEwiMz6v085qJAxUFJxAIHS_NCocQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=+jamila+musayeva+celebrating+33&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiHyBqYW1pbGEgbXVzYXlldmEgY2VsZWJyYXRpbmcgMzMyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAEyBBAhGBUyBBAhGBVI3S5QzRFYii5wAngBkAEAmAF7oAHQDaoBBDIuMTS4AQPIAQD4AQGYAhKgAsQOwgIKEAAYsAMY1gQYR8ICChAjGIAEGCcYigXCAgQQIxgnwgIFEC4YgATCAgYQABgHGB7CAgUQABiABMICFBAuGIAEGJcFGNwEGN4EGOAE2AEBwgIIEAAYgAQYywHCAgYQABgWGB7CAggQABiABBiiBMICBxAhGKABGAqYAwCIBgGQBgS6BgYIARABGBSSBwQzLjE1oAerTg&sclient=gws-wiz-serp Mlody1312 (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it, because claiming that instagram isn't valid in this case is ridiculous, it's like claiming that she herself doesn't know when was she born. Mlody1312 (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I reverted because Wikipedia does not include unsourced content on living people PamD 20:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll delete age data then. And when it comes to the clarification of certification, it is literally clarified in the article, in the "early life" section. Your addition is unjustified. Mlody1312 (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And also, WP:INSTAGRAM "The official page of a subject may be used as a self-published, primary source, but only if it can be authenticated as belonging to the subject." Mlody1312 (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2024 (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.