Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruby Muhammad

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 no consensus. I don't see there is agreement on whether the sources are sufficiently substantial, which is the key issue, & I don;t think further debate will get us to a consensus. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Muhammad

edit
Ruby Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable religious leader. Ism schism (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Leaning towards "delete". Ruby Muhammad's main claim to noatbility is her claims of advanced age, the accuracy or otherwise of which have been the subject of humungous discussions at Talk:Ruby Muhammad. However, longevity (or claims of longevity) are not evidence of notability, so the relevant test in WP:GNG.
    So far, I see only one source which comes close to be useful in a GNG assessment: "Mother Muhammad Goes Mobile", in The Sacramento Observer. That's not enough to meet GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In reality there are multiple, multiple sources that mention Ms. Muhammad. However, it is not in my best interests to quote those that fail to give an accurate assessment of how old she might be. As discussed, even as the "Ruby Muhammad" personality is being promoted in plays such as this:
    http://www.sacbee.com/2010/02/17/2542081/112-year-old-plans-to-give-a-performance.html?pageNum=1&&mi_pluck_action=page_nav#Comments_Container
    While we see that even her family has her listed as born in 1906 on her family tree (as discussed before). The bottom line: the issue of "notability" and the issue of whether her age is true or false are two independent issues. If she is notable, it is because of PUBLICITY.Ryoung122 11:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason the article is for her was for her age. When the article was made, everyone thought that Mrs. Muhammad was a supercentenarian. It turns that she really is only 102 years old. Deleting it is a good idea. Other debunked original supercentenarians that are only known for their age should be deleted as well. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nick, I think you are missing the point. Did we delete the article of Milli Vanilli when it turned out they were frauds? While anyone who wants to promote the truth of how long humans really live, wouldn't want to see this case go uncontested, it is also true that, sometimes, it appears that every claim that is investigated is validated (when in reality, a huge number of cases turn out to be false). In the same way that crime makes cops needed, so false cases make age verification important. For these reasons, I believe this case should be kept.
    I would also note that this case has been featured in the news many times since her obstensible 106th birthday in 2003, so it is not a "one event" case. We have seen her news stories in places across the USA, most recently in Utah. And her assertion that she wants to become the "world's oldest person" suggests that the Ruby Muhammad storyline will continue/Ryoung122 10:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • She probably was only born in 1906/7 but that dosen't mean that we have to delete the article. Imagine how upset the Nation of Islam will be if you do this.Plyjacks (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep so being the mother of the nation of islam isnt considered notable? Longevitydude (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is a false assertion to say that longevity (or claims of longevity) cannot be evidence of notability. It is clear that many, many cases of extreme longevity are covered in the media, and some of these persons become famous enough to warrant their own article.
    In this case, it doesn't matter if the age claim is true or false; it matters that the case is getting a lot of press mention. Also, as the "Mother of the Nation of Islam" this case is one of those hybrid cases where she was not quite known before old age, but her claim to fame is in a reinforcing feedback loop, whereby some view it remarkable that she is OLD AND KNOWN FOR SOMETHING. However, it is also clear that the older she gets, the more famous she gets. Just how old she is, is irrelevant: what matters is that there is substantial coverage in multiple sources (although it could be argued that most of the sources are LOCAL...the Sacramento Bee, in particular).Ryoung122 10:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest we KEEP the article. Even if she was born in 1906/7 or not we should keep it here. Plyjacks (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is a lot of verbose irrelevancy in this discussion. The position is simple: it doesn't matter whether Ms Muhammad is 5 years old or 105, or whether she claims to be six or sixteen or sixty years old. Nor does it matter that editors talk of "substantial coverage in multiple sources": let's see the links, and see how substantial it is. So far all we have is a few little pieces of trivia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The above comment is UNsigned. Aside from that, it's clear there are a LOT of links, including ones already on the page.Ryoung122 05:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Wikipedia is supposed to reflect OUTSIDE sources, not one's own personal opinion. It's clear that the media have decided that Ruby is notable, whatever age she may be. Coverage has been continuing since at least 2003 and increased in both saturation (more outlets) and depth in recent years. One can easily run a search on Google to find even more links than the ones here. Aside from that, it is FALSE to say that "it doesn't matter whether Ms Muhammad is 5 years old or 105." The media, and the public, decided that extreme longevity is notable when a person becomes a living symbol, a connection with the past...for example see the article on Henry Allingham. Had he died at 89, he would not have been notable.
    Now, that doesn't mean that everyone who is 113 will achieve notability...it does mean, however, that extreme age can be a factor in someone achieving notability. To not acknowledge that FACT is to pushing POV bias, which is contrary to Wikipedia's NPOV policy and the policy that Wikipedia should reflect outside sources, not the editor's personal biases.Ryoung122 05:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply. Robert, this is nothing to do with anyone's POV, nor is it about link-counting. The test in WP:GNG is "substantial coverage in multiple sources", and so far there is no evidence of that. Your comment that "the media have decided that Ruby is notable" is irrelevant; that's an assertion, but we need evidence.
    You also miss the point about her age: it's irrelevant to our assessment here, because age (or lack of, or clams of) are not evidence of notability per the guideline WP:GNG, which is broadly neutral on why someone is notable. Notability is assessed per WP:GNG against "substantial coverage in multiple sources", and that applies whether the person is notable for climbing mountains, being very old, very fat, very stupid, having spent their life masquerading as a unicorn or as a member of Romanov family, or whatever. Even if RM was verifiably 371 years old, she still wouldn't be notable per WP:GNG unless she was the subject of "substantial coverage in multiple sources". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the subject is not as old as she claims to be, then her claim to notability would seem to be her role in the Nation of Islam. Unfortunately, hardly any information has been provided about that, nor have I been able to find sources that explain it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether she is really 103 or 113, she has had coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources as being a well known figure within her religious movement, and as someone thought, correctly or not , to have been born in the 19th century. The continued significant coverage in newspapers satisfies WP:N, regardless of its truth in the eyes of some independent researchers. We determine whether someone is noted, not whether all claims about them which are noted are in fact true. I absolutely do not agree that originaal research in census records negate newspaper coverage over many years. See continuing significant coverage in 2003, 2006, 2008(noted above), 2009, 2010. Edison (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is information disputing Ruby's age posted on other sites, for example:

http://www.grg.org/CalmentFraud.html

To me, though, the issue about keep or delete isn't about her age; it's whether she is notable as the "Mother of the Nation of Islam". We see her in popular culture. For example:

http://www.deadoraliveinfo.com/dead.nsf/mnames-nf/Muhammad+Ruby

By the way, her real name is Ruby Pittman, and even her family tree, made by her family, lists her as born in 1906. Therefore, I see "Ruby Muhammad" as a fictional character, not a real person. Note, for example:

http://www.rubymuhammad.com/home

It is clear that this is a fundraising vehicle for the Nation of Islam, as well as a promoter of "values" (much the same way material on, say, Seventh-Day Adventists promote a lifestyle). It's clear that the real issue about Ruby is NOT her age. In fact, the Ruby Muhammad.com website states:

"Muhammad joined the Nation in 1946 and was named Mother of the Nation of Islam in 1986 by Minister Louis Farrakhan, and has an international following of admiration by those in the Nation of Islam."

"In March 2007, she ostensibly turned 110, though this has not been documented."

So it seems that age, if anything, is being used to promote a "lifestyle"...the nation of Islam as a "healthy lifestyle". To those of faith, documented proof is not something they worry about. Faith and religion operate in a different world than scientific proof and documentation.76.17.118.157 (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to 76.17.118.157, I am not sure that being listed on Deadoraliveinfo.com is really a reference in popular culture. All that site says is that Ruby Muhammad is alive, is in the field of religion, and is known as the Mother of the Nation of Islam, and then cites Wikipedia with regard to the dispute over her age. For her to be mentioned in popular culture, I would be looking to references to her in movies, television shows, songs, etc. -- something along the lines of the reference to Louis Farrakhan in the song "Bring the Noise". I don't know what 76.17.118.157 means by referring to Ruby Muhammad as a fictional character -- that is the religiously adopted name of Ruby Pittman, and she is not playing a character. But with regard to her religious activities, if she was named "Mother of the Nation of Islam" 40 years after joining the religion, I would expect to see some description somewhere of what she was doing on behalf of the NoI during those 40 years that resulted in her receiving such a title. I can't find any sources that discuss that, much less reliable ones. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources presented by Edison initially swayed me to think keep. However, the reliability of the sources appears variable: Sacramento Bee is fine, but a lot of the rest seems to be quite local coverage in low circulation publications that generally appear to be human interest puff pieces. That some of these sources seem to unquestionably report her birth year as 1897 suggests they are not strong on reliability and fact-checking (which WP:RS requires). This article for example cannot possible be considered a reliable source; it's essentially an ad. Overall I'm not convinced the sources amount to significant coverage in reliable sources. But happy to change my mind if someone can sway me. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mkativerata. I commented as week ago on the apparent lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources, and since then there is no sign of anything else to sway the balance. It's also a pity that so many contributors have chosen to use this AFD to discuss issues which have no bearing on the deletion decision. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100228/LIVING/702289935
just because her age is debunked doesn't mean shes not still notable for being the mother of the nation of islam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTE#Notability_is_not_temporary --Longevitydude (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Omaha World Herald article is not substantial, so it does not establish notability per WP:GNG, and the fact that it's wrong about her age does suggest that it is a reliable source. Being "Mother of the Nation of Islam" does not of itself nmake her notable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.rubymuhammad.com/home

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-79648564.html

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700011541/112-year-old-Mother-Ruby-Muhammad-plans-to-sing-read-poetry-on-stage.html

Longevitydude (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Deseret News article is an exact copy of the Sacramento Bee article. I duuno which is a prerint of which. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
that first link was published in febuary and that second link was published in march, but they are both accurate and reliable. Longevitydude (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are the same article, and there is plenty of evidence to question their accuracy and reliability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what evidence? Longevitydude (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This seems to be a three-way argument. The recent articles on Ruby Muhammad are neither accurate nor reliable in regards to her age quoted, in actuality. However, they come from sources (such as the Omaha World-Herald) which are generally considered reliable. I thought BHG said that her age didn't matter? If that's that case, let's look at the FACTS. This claim has been covered in the press for 7+ years (and so it is not a "one-event" mention); it has been covered in multiple "reliable" sources that include mentions outside the Sacramento area (and so this is not simply "local" coverage); the articles have been ABOUT Ruby Muhammad, and not simply a trivial mention. A "trivial" mention is, for example, a person being quoted in a story as an "eyewitness." In these cases, the articles are ABOUT Ms. Muhammad. Therefore, she IS covered in multiple sources and so this article SHOULD pass Wikipedia standards on notability. I'd also note that this article has existed for more than three years, a sign that, in general, most visitors didn't even consider a deletion.Ryoung122 09:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Robert, the fact is that in the 11 days that this AFD has been open, there have been repeated calls for evidence that she meets the notability tests in WP:GNG. You continue to assert that she meets GNG, but repeatedly fail to provide evidence.
The only sign do far of substantial coverage is : Deseret News article and Sacramento Bee article. However, the two articles are identical, so we really have only one article.
So where is the rest of the substantial coverage? Let's see some evidence rather than repeated assertions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think EDISON did a good job of quoting multiple, multiple sources. Granted, most of the coverage, until recently, has been:
A. the Sacramento Bee newspaper
B. materials put out by opportunists ("the Scooter store")
C. material from the Nation of Islam
However, in general, we find when we run the Google test for "Ruby+Muhammad" that we get
Results 1 - 10 of about 7,670 for "Ruby Muhammad". (0.17 seconds)
more than 7,000 hits, including several photos. We also find that she has been picked up into the popular mainstream, being featured in deathpools and websites such as "deadoralive". Sites such as these only list "notable" persons, so this is evidence of notability in the pop culture.
Ryoung122 10:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates? What are you talking about, their not all duplicates and their not all on the same date either, so what are you talking about? Longevitydude (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Try actually reading what I posted. I cited five sources from five separate years. They are not "one source" as has been misstated. They are not duplicates. The standard of notability is not "whether she is really 113 years old" versus a "mere" 103, or whether she is "really an influential religious leader" as opposed "merely" to an elderly lady called "The Mother of Islam" by religious leaders. WP:N just requires significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, which has been presented. It is inappropriate and unconvincing to argue that the newspapers are all "unreliable" because they state she was born 10 years before the original research of Wikipedia editors and others suggests. We judge by what is cited, not by "truth" based on original research in census records. There are more sources at Google News archive. Edison (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Though I agree that this article should be kept, I disagree with the false assertion that the debunking of Ruby Muhammad's age is "original" research. Her age has been debunked in published sources, such as:

http://www.amazon.com/AFRICAN-AMERICAN-LONGEVITY-ADVANTAGE-Comparison-Supercentenarian/dp/3639105702/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268516484&sr=1-1

http://www.grg.org/CalmentFraud.html

However, what we are discussing today is NOT whether she is born in 1897 (as publicly claimed), 1906 (as privately claimed), or 1907 (as determined by researchers). What we are discussing today is whether there has been coverage in multiple, independent sources...which, by the way, are NOT limited to newspaper accounts. The answer is YES. In addition, given that her alleged 113th birthday is just next week, we can all expect even more coverage to continue.Ryoung122 21:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

        • Comment. Aside from the fact that that is A PUBLISHED BOOK, not a university Masters's thesis (even though it is based on one), I find it incredulous that Wikipedia would generally discount a Masters's thesis while giving "credit" to news. By the way, that's NOT what that actually says. Reading it, it's clear it is a much-debated and unresolved issue. Additionally, my thesis won a national award, so even if Masters' theses in general are not peer-reviewed, this one was.Ryoung122 19:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ruby Muhammad is mentioned in several books and hundreds of sites on the web. Here are some:

Ruby Muhammad in books: Mama Nikki's Guide for Parents: "How to Raise a Healthy Sane Child" by Alice "Nikki" Johnson-Muhammad (Paperback - 30 Oct 2006) The Future of Us All: Race and Neighborhood Politics in New York City (The anthropology of contemporary issues) by Roger Sanjek (Paperback - 24 Feb 2000)

Ruby Muhammad on the web: Visited the White House three times and won a lifetime achievement award http://www.sacdhhs.com/CMS/download/pdfs/HHS/Mother-Ruby-Muhammad.pdf Addresses community groups http://www.sacandco.net/story.aspx?storyid=74572&catid=299 her stories turn up in all sorts of bulletins http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourworld/powerof50/articles/obama_awards_wwii-era.html the mother of sacramento http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/19768/The_Mother_of_Sacramento reading poetry http://www.sacbee.com/2010/02/17/2542081/112-year-old-plans-to-give-a-performance.html astrology http://www.astrotheme.fr/portraits/2Lzm7KAQBFvR.htm politics http://brothermustafaa.com/Noi_Ultimate_list.htm race and politics http://www.finalcall.com/national/believers03-05-2002.htm racial politics http://www.100yearsproject.org/About_Film.html Omaha http://www.omaha.com/article/20100228/LIVING/702289935/-1/living poetry http://gotpoetry.com/News/print/sid=49815.html racial problems in new york http://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/12/nyregion/brooklyn-clash-spurred-queens-to-end-boycott.html?pagewanted=1 women of color http://events.linkedin.com/2010-annual-Sacramento-Community-Women/pub/231923 music http://www.lo-cal.com/bands/suzannebrooksthejazzgeneration/ In Australia with references http://www.thinkingaustralia.com/thinking_australia/wikipedia/default.php?title=Ruby_Muhammad womens events http://www.womensradio.com/articles/2010-Annual-Sacramento-Community-Women-Of-Color-Day-Diversity-Event,-Symbols-in-Silver/4429.html history http://www.historymania.com/american_history/Ruby_Muhammad rosa parks day http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/2446/t/4949/p/d/donordigital/events/public/event.sjs?dekey=49&key=18333 60.229.6.186 (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Chris Amos[reply]

those are perfectly reliable sources, besides i doubt you can come up with arguments over all the sources. Longevitydude (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI there actually are reliable sources. Longevitydude (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment These are certainly not "self published," but are from a respected newspaper. This one article should not have a higher standard as to "reliable sources" than for all other articles. Your disagreeing with a source does not make it not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Edison (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to have been the subject of enough significant coverage to justify a Wikipedia biography. That's the only thing that matters here (not how old she actually is), and the reliable sources provided elsewhere in this AFD seem to be (just about) enough to satisfy it. Robofish (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ruby_Muhammad&oldid=1138321828"