Talk:Sumaya Alnasser

Pop Sugar Sourcing and her books

@Kuru, You can't simply remove long standing sourcing with your own wish especially if you are challenged multiple times by different editors. See WP:BRD. Seek consensus instead of edit warring. You are an admin this does not give you any Carte blanche to restore your preferred version. ~2026-34125-01 (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kuru future edit warring will be discussed at WP:BN. ~2026-34125-01 (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

We can step thorough it source by source, if you'd like. Start a list here. Unfortunately, your edits have introduced a large number of spam and SEO sources. I'd be delighted to go through all of them. Sam Kuru (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kuru Please enlighten me then why different editors are wrong and you are correct and let's try to improve it in a collaborative spirit? ~2026-34125-01 (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kuru Why you think adding red category to the article is constructive? Also when come PopSugar, becomes unreliable? ~2026-34125-01 (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

A now-dead 2018 link to the "Middle East" version of a Vox Media gossip site. Not a WP:RS for a biography. See here or here. Another problem would be that it simply name-checks the subject, and does not actually support any of the claims in that sentence. Let's try another. Sam Kuru (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

No quick answer now, it seems; let me ask a few questions. Tell me about Forbes Georgia piece and its author, and why you feels that is not a paid advertorial. Tell me about the Business Insider piece and what "Plentisoft" is. Tell me about Jon Stojan and Nia Bowers; do they have anything in common? Tell me about the Forbes India article - do you see anything that could be odd there? Sam Kuru (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Lets remove forbes Georgia as it explicitly claims that it is a sponsored content. Lemme look into others. ~2026-34125-01 (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kuru Forbes Georgia removed, Y. Allow me to dive deeper into this. ~2026-34125-01 (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

This article may help you with the Stojan/Bowers question. Sam Kuru (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kuru Business Insiders removed per MOS and RS Y ~2026-34125-01 (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kuru Forbes India removed per Wikipedia:CITEBOMB and possible paid issue. Y ~2026-34125-01 (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kuru I have done some more clean up per WP:CITEBOMB issue, I am not convinced by your argument that PopSugar is merely a gossip site as we currently don't have any strong consensus on it yet per the links you provided and RSN. Also I am not convinced with LA Weekly to be unreliable here atleast per reliable in

context guidelines.

Editors have just used LA Weekly here for a claim that she had authored over 100+ books and indeed most of her books usually exists to verify so it's unpalatable to me that various multinational publications are just faking Nasser has authored 100+ books. It's also difficult to get convinced that entire world from America to Saudi is in the subject's pocket to blatantly promote her. ~2026-34125-01 (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kuru Since you raised concerns on PopSugar I have removed it from there for now as we don't need it actually per WP:CITEBOMB issue. Y ~2026-34125-01 (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

That was not what I asked you. Let's try again: "Tell me about Jon Stojan and Nia Bowers; do they have anything in common?" Also, you really don't need to "@" me every time you reply. I'll watch this page. Sam Kuru (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Per simple google search for Nia, and Jon I am not seeing any fishy or blatant promo here.

1). https://muckrack.com/nia-bowers

2). https://muckrack.com/jon-stojan

Both seems to be well established journalists working for various reputed multinational publications and indeed passes WP:RS. If you have personal concerns with them please feel free to reach consensus that they are not well established journalists but serial spammers. ~2026-34174-96 (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Note:: Me the IP editor has just restored the older version including books, coz I found its removal objectionable especially from someone who is sitting at the chair of admin and repeatedly edit warring with multiple editors. The actual editor who had included the books was @Arbitorya. Per discussion with Kuru I did try to improve the sourcing a bit by removing the sources which were clearly objectionable. I hope my interference was helpful here. ~2026-34320-36 (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Neither is a journalist. I think it speaks volumes that you're being deliberately obtuse. They're both part of the same SEO/Marketing firm that's been spamming Wikipedia for years. Look again. Sam Kuru (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kuru, just created a temporary account for this, actually getting logged out again and again. I disagree on your personal faith. Seek consensus on your personal faith regarding them, and for your, I think it speaks volumes that you're being deliberately obtuse. see wp:agf, comment on content not on editors please. Temporalipeditor (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear; you've been unable to find any connections between those two marketing professionals; say at a company called "First North Marketing"? That is weird, it's not a hard google search. You certainly didn't dig much on Jon Stojan. Don't take my word for it, though, you can take the word of Sangdeboeuf (talk · contribs) who noted the problem here. Or Daask (talk · contribs) who noted it here. Or Kqol (talk · contribs), who noted it here. Or Vermont who noted it here. Odd how LA Weekly keeps popping up. I think you can see how any rational editor would agree this is just an advertorial or paid placement, done by a rather amateurish group of PR hacks. Sam Kuru (talk) 03:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kuru, Then get it blacklisted it first through proper process and then come to me. You should WP:Drop the stick. There is no strong consensus at RSN that LA Weekly is a fabricated junk. If you think get it blacklisted it RSP first instead of wasting time here by Buldgeoning, My observation is that both are established journalists and the publications in questions passes WP:RS. I have nothing more to discuss here atleast with you, further edit warring shall be reported to WP:BN or similar noticeboard that you are abusing your admin hat to restore your preferred version. Reputed publications like LA Weekly always mark their paid content as such. My stance is that, if you able to seek consensus that your personal enemies in real life fails WP:RS, then any uninvolved editor can removed it based on the strong consensus, otherwise you should drop the stick. Temporalipeditor (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Your observation is clearly incorrect and you've simply ignored the material spoon-fed to you above. None of these people "personal enemies in real life", just long term spammers on this project that we've had to deal with for a long time. Odd that WP:AGF only applies when it's convenient for you. We still have more "sources" to discuss; this was your preferred method, correct? Sam Kuru (talk) 04:25, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, looks like I was pinged here. Recognizing that a couple of these have since been removed, let's walk through some of these sources:

• LA Weekly. Sure, LA Weekly as a publication is not entirely "fabricated junk". However, the piece used in this article is almost certainly paid. As with the couple hundred other puff pieces published under the name Nia Bowers about various companies and entrepreneurs.
• The Forbes piece is explicitly noted as a paid placement.
• The Business Insider piece is also noted as a press release, which is paid.
• The Swagger Magazine piece is also likely paid; it follows exactly the same structure and tone as the other paid pieces. Checking other posts published under the editorial team's name, they are clearly publishing paid content.
• The Forbes India piece is explicitly noted as a paid advertisement.
• The Village Voice piece is, unfortunately, also most likely paid. Same formula as the others, purely a puff piece without any actual journalism.

Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 04:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Vermont It is what we called WP:Canvassing. Pinged you by Kuru knowing your earlier stance is pretty much a canvassing. It's clear that he is begging support by pinging editors already knowing their stance. Let's see how this ends. De-sysop?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Temporalipeditor (talk • contribs)

Odd, was it canvassing to ping Arbitorya? Would you like me to ping other accounts that have added those links? Many of them are blocked and will unable to participate. If you feel that I've abused the administrative toolset, please feel free to post something at WP:BN. Sam Kuru (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't believe this to be canvassing. Kuru pinged people who have demonstrated expertise (or at least interest) in evaluating the types of sources which are under discussion. This is covered under WP:APPNOTE. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 05:08, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Removal of Book section

Hellow, Wikipedians,

Kuru is removing the entire book section of the subject despite being adequately sourced, me and another editor challenged this, please comment if it should stay or removed? Let's seek consensus.

• Oppose Removal Adequately Cited. Temporalipeditor (talk) 04:30, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Which of those "sources" are used for the content of the list? Sam Kuru (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

That was me. Listing all 100 books' titles in one huge list is not relevant to our readers. We can simply say that she's published around 100 books. If there are specific books which have received secondary coverage, we could discuss mentioning those individually. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 04:36, 11 June 2026 (UTC)