Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamilah Taib Murray

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. While some editors advanced an argument around notability being demonstrated by some sources, including Money Logging, a consensus of participating editors feel those sources either are not reliable sources or otherwise do not present significant coverage of Murray. Murray may merit inclusion in some other articles but there was no consensus among either keep or delete participants about a merge target. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jamilah Taib Murray

Jamilah Taib Murray (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)

Does not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Article is no longer exclusively about OECD NCP and conflict with BMF. Though "being very wealthy" is not a criterion as per
  WP:NBIO, Mrs. Taib Murray is a public figure active in philanthropic circles, and has been at the centre of controversies surrounding her wealth for many years. This ongoing issue has resulted in articles in all major media in Canada (Globe & Mail, National Post, CBC, etc.), as well as numerous court cases.^[1] She has been the subject of ongoing reporting by journalist Clare Rewcastle Brown, with significant coverage in Sarawak Report^[2]. Mrs. Taib Murray has even risen to the level of parliamentary discussion in Canada^[3]. Less wealthy, less controversial, and less newsworthy Canadian businesspeople such John E. Irving and Thorsten Heins, among many, many others, have pages devoted to them - exclusively due to their success in business. The fact that Jamilah Taib Murray controls a global empire worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and is engaged in ongoing litigation as to the origin of this wealth, which according to former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is derived from "probably the biggest environmental crime of our times,"^[4] makes her a worthy candidate for a page. Jamilah Taib Murray is also a member of one of the most politically influential and wealthy families in Malaysia, being the daughter of the "politically exposed person" Abdul Taib Mahmud, with her two siblings Sulaiman Abdul Rahman Taib and Hanifah Hajar Taib
  each having pages devoted to them.

Above comments made by Hoagy23

The Sarawak Report includes some significant coverage of the subject, although it's mostly in the context of the activities of the rest of her family. The other sources not so much. If you can find more coverage like that, I'd be fine with voting keep here. I would note that Abdul Taib, Sulaiman Taib and Hanifah Taib are/were politicians that meet

WP:NPOLITICIAN; the same cannot be said for Jamilah, and notability is not inherited. That having been said, arguments make a decent case for having an article about the Taib family. The independent notability of Jamilah Taib Murray is still in question. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Agreed, notability is not inherited. Also, most of the notoriety of Jamilah Taib Murray comes from the BMF campaign. However, she has put herself into the public eye as the result of her extensive philanthropic activites, as well as her legal actions.^[5] Other organizations, notably Global Witness and OECD Watch, have included mention of Jamilah Taib Murray and Sakto Corporation in their research on corruption related to logging in Sarawak.^[6][7]

Articles about Jamilah Taib Murray have been written in the Toronto Star^[8], Ici Radio-Canada Télé (the French language outlet for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation^[9], Financial Post^[10], and The Globe and Mail^[11], among many others. To have one of the wealthiest women in Canada, active in philanthropic circles, who has generated so much media coverage and controversy from multiple sources, to be ignored by Wikipedia would seem odd. She is, in my opinion, far more noteworthy than many other Canadian businesspeople who have pages devoted to them.^[12]

Above comments made by Hoagy23

Ok, let's look at these additional sources.

• #5 is coverage of the case against Sakto, but doesn't really have any information about Taib Murray other than that she owns Sakto with her husband and that she is Abdul Taib Muhammad's daughter
• #6 is some sort of primary source report, which at any rate barely mentions Jamilah Taib Murray.
• #7 does not mention Jamilah Taib Murray.
• #8 is an opinion piece, and thus likely should not be considered reliable coverage of the subject, as its coverage comprises claims made by an NGO against Taib Murray
• #9 only mentions Taib Murray to quote her website's comment on allegations against the company Sakto. All other coverage is focused on her father, Sakto or La famille Taib
• #10 is a mere-mention of Taib Murray, stating that she and her husband are the proprietors of Sakto
• #11 is paywalled and I can't access it so someone who can access it will need to provide relevant quotes.

I still don't see enough coverage to meet GNG. I think that we have coverage that could make useful additions to Abdul Taib Mahmud, and possibly enough content to write an article about the Taib family or Sakto, but we're rather thin on coverage of Jamilah Taib Murray specifically. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sakto is a private company owned by

Cahya Mata Sarawak Berhad, Ridgeford, all of which are mentioned in the Wikipedia entry, and have caused some controversy in the media), is in my view of far greater interest than the grandaughter of an oil magnate, who has accomplished little of her own volition. Perhaps if Jamilah Taib Murray had named her real estate business after herself, as was the case with Campeau Corporation, she would have been more easily identified, and deserving of an entry, as is the case with Robert Campeau

, who is notable only for the rise and fall of his real estate empire.

I leave it to the editors, but to suggest that the corporate interests of Jamilah Taib Murray, and the controversy surrounding their provenance, including court cases in Canada and Switzerland, and mention in Canada's House of Commons, is of lesser merit than Kathleen Andrews, "a British-Canadian bus driver and transport manager," and is therefore of no interest to the readership of Wikipedia, is frankly baffling.

It should also be noted that Wikipedia is lacking in female business leaders in Canada. With a proven net worth of over $250 million, and an active role as a philanthropist,^[13][14][15] Jamilah Taib Murray would seem to warrant an entry as much as Mina Lux. The fact that Jamilah Taib Murray herself avoids scrutiny as to the origin of her impressive wealth does not, in my view, disqualify her.

Above comments made by Hoagy23

If a person is covered by RS only in the context of their affiliation with a company, the general procedure is to write an article about that company, and then redirect the founder/executive/etc's name to the article about the company. The only reason I haven't suggested writing an article about

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. From glancing at the article for Sarah Irving, I would vote to delete that too, but that's not an argument to keep this article. Robert Campeau, on the other hand, has citations to long and detailed biographical profiles. The issue isn't whether someone is only famous for being affiliated with one company: the issue is when all coverage of a subject is in connection to news reporting about a company. Find me an article like this about Taib Murray and I'd be happy to vote keep. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Good points, particularly on a Sakto page, though that is only one of her corporate entities, among many. One oddity is that in the Swiss court case which the Wikipedia page covers, Jamilah Taib Murray names herself with her husband, along with Sakto itself, in the lawsuit. Legally, she directly ties her interest and reputation with those of Sakto, which makes sense, as she is the owner. Otherwise, she keeps a low profile, with the exception of her philanthropic activities, which might in and of themselves warrant her entry, as she is very much a part of "high society" on Ottawa - the Ottawa Business Journal alone has nine entries[16]. It is of note that her legal woes are of interest to the press in Asia, too.^[17] I will defer to the community, and hope this page stays up, as I still find it odd that such a controversial and public figure, of such immense wealth, active in many philanthropic enterprises, embroiled in numerous legal battles, is somehow excluded from relevance/interest, yet one of her companies - itself a product of her wealth and activities, yet otherwise simply a real estate company - might warrant entry. In her philanthropic activity she clearly wants to be "known" along with Sakto.^[18][19]

Above comments made by Hoagy23

• Keep sufficient coverage if you include Lukas Straumann (2014). Money Logging: On the Trail of the Asian Timber Mafia. Schwabe AG. pp. 26–32 inter alia.
  ISBN 9783905252705.. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC).[reply
  ]
  

• Delete This page appears to be directed at perpetuating negative media about a private citizen. That negative media is the very subject of the Swiss defamation lawsuit referenced by the page's author, and it is ongoing. The subject's "notoriety" is based almost exclusively on the allegations of the defendant to the lawsuit (the Bruno Manser Fund and its Executive Director Lukas Straumann) and those who have repeated those allegations (such as Timothy Wilson who is cited in the article). The book referenced by Farmborough above is specifically addressed in the lawsuit as one of the acts of defamation. In addition, this page ignores an earlier lawsuit brought by the Bruno Manser Fund (making the same defamatory allegations) against the subject. The lawsuit was dismissed by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on February 7, 2017. In that decision, The Honourable Justice Dunphy found that the Bruno Manser Funds allegations were based on "speculation and conjecture".[20] The fact that a private citizen is taking firm and appropriate legal action to address defamatory allegations does not raise their profile to the standard of notable. This page should be deleted. --Wellput (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wellput, I assume a "not" is missing from somewhere in the last two sentences? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]
• Also, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that your edit history (or rather, lack thereof) is a bit suspicious. If you had voted in opposition to me, I would likely be opening a sockpuppet investigation right now. As I'm fairly confident that you are not secretly me in disguise, I have to ask if you have any relevant
  conflicts of interest to disclose. Your arguments appear to be sound, but your familiarity with additional details about the subject not previously mentioned in this discussion is further evidence of a possible relationship with the subject. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thank you for the helpful references and comments. I now know the meaning of sockpuppet. My apologies for getting a few things wrong - as you correctly note, I am new to this, and created the account only to address the material that is the subject of this page. The attempt to use Wikipedia as part of a publicity campaign against a private individual concerned me. Regarding COI, I now know I ought to have declared this in providing comments on the deletion discussion. I specifically avoided suggesting edits on the actual page as I saw that as problematic. To clarify, I am not being paid to comment/edit, but I do have an existing relationship with parties mentioned in the page. I will refrain from providing more detail out of fear of retribution from the proponents. I have attempted to be factual and avoid bias, recognizing that it is difficult to do so. The facts to which I refer are all in the public domain, and available on the BMF website and the website [21] maintained by legal council to Sakto Corporation, which addresses the legal dispute in question. I do hope the page in question is deleted. Wellput (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The fact that Wellput has a personal relationship with Jamilah Taib does not negate the facts behind his/her argument, but it might affect objectivity. The entry covers more than the lawsuit. It also addresses the fact that Jamilah Taib Murray is an active philanthropist, with public records indicating that her provable net worth is ~$250 million, making her the wealthiest woman in Ottawa (if not in Canada). Though wealth alone does not warrant an entry, she has used her resources to promote numerous causes, and remains an active - and very public - figure in Ottawa's philanthropic circles. Wellput is correct in pointing out that the legal action stems from one source, though I believe it is incorrect to state that the lawsuit dismissed by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on February 7, 2017 was against "the subject." In fact, that lawsuit was to retrieve financial records from private corporations, and not Jamilah Taib Murray. I found this after taking a quick look at the website Wellput referenced, which as noted is maintained by Sakto Corporation’s legal counsel in Canada, noticia LLP."^[22] I am sympathetic to Wellput's concerns, but is the entry itself defamatory? It may be that Jamilah Taib Murray would rather not have such matters spoken of, but it would appear that the controversy surrounding the origins of her fortune has been commented on by the former Prime Minister of Britain, and raised in Canada's House of Commons, and has received extensive coverage by investigative journalist Clare Rewcastle Brown. This along with Jamilah Taib Murray's wealth and philanthropic activities, in my view, makes her a person of biographical interest. Should her defamation suit succeed, then that of course will be part of the public record, too, and should be included in the entry. It should also be noted that her father, Abdul Taib Mahmud, (the man who gave her the money, apparently, to start her business) has been accused of corruption for many years, and the history of these accusations - as well as the important fact that, to date, there have been no legal findings - is maintained as part of his biographical record on Wikipedia._signed, Hoagy23

Hoagy23 has made very few contributions in Wikipedia besides the contested article. -The Gnome (talk) 06:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. The subject of the contested article is, per
  Wikipedia is not an advocacy forum and that includes the advocacy for gender equality
  ; and so on.

The purported sources are little more than standard, celeb advertorials and obscure name-drops:

no merit here. -The Gnome (talk) 06:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - actually, I don't buy the "private citizen" argument. She owns a significant corporation and has very publicly put herself about in the Ottawa area. Having said all that I simply don't see the significant coverage that is needed so it fails to meet
  WP:BIO. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2019 (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.