Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mervat Rashwan


 * 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. Numerically close (8–7 in favour of deletion), but taking into account the lack of policy grounding in many of the keep votes, there is a clear consensus that the subject is not notable. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Mervat Rashwan

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No evidence of sigcov Ficaia (talk) 09:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. Ficaia (talk) 09:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football,  and Egypt.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - another poor nomination with no evidence of BEFORE being carried out; international player. GiantSnowman 21:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Why did you vote different in Articles for deletion/Karina Moore? What is the difference? Both players have competed in the international women's football competition from their respective confederations. CONCACAF W Championship (Moore) and the Africa Women Cup of Nations (Farouk) are the women's equivalent to CONCACAF Gold Cup and Africa Cup of Nations. If players who appear in the men's counterparts can have their own articles here, why could not the women's ones? MonFrontieres (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage. If the female counterparts don't receive that for their participations in those tournaments, they don't get articles. Pure and simple. Wikipedia is not all or nothing. Each subject's merits are judged individually.Tvx1 15:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Time and time again we have to tell you that playing for a national team is NOT a valid argument to keep an article. If a national team does not play at meaningful level, their players certainly aren't notable for playing for them. When will this finally get through to you?? And even if a national team does reach a significant level, that doesn't make every player that was ever called-up for them, even without actually playing, automatically notable. Notability is not inherited. The only thing that matters is coverage.Tvx1 15:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep – association football player who has played at least once for a national team at senior level.--MonFrontieres (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a valid keep argument in any way.Tvx1 15:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per GS and MF. Obviously notable. Yet another bad nom.  NGS  Shakin' All Over 22:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I trust the closer will disregard the non-arguments above. The subject lacks sigcov. Ficaia (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BEFORE - you need to comply with it. GiantSnowman 06:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting there is sigcov of this subject? Because I can't find it. And no one has produced any. Ficaia (talk) 06:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a word of truth in your rationale.Tvx1 15:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

. Have you even looked at the article this morning? expanded it yesterday evening with additional sources that you would have found yourself if, as has emphasised, you had actually carried out WP:BEFORE ahead of coming here with your no evidence claim. Your nominations are a waste of everyone else's time and I'm now seriously considering ANI to propose that you are barred from AfD. Your behaviour, including the suggestion to the closer about what you call non-arguments, persistently breaches AfD spirit and guidelines.  NGS  Shakin' All Over 08:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Those sources are all either simple mentions or database entries. We require sigcov. Ficaia (talk) 09:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * While the nominator could improve his nominations with a simple WP:BEFORE (or make it clearer that it was performed) it still doesn't change the fact that there is no significant coverage found in the article and no editors have been able to precent any here. None of the sources presented go towards GNG, as can be seen in BilledMammal's assessment below. Arguments based on WP:MUSTBESOURCES and WP:Clearly notable are not valid arguments in AfD. Alvaldi (talk) 11:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It does not appear that MonFrontieres has added any SIGCOV sources. –dlthewave ☎ 12:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails WP:GNG as no WP:SIGCOV has been provided here or at the article - see the following source assessment table

BilledMammal (talk) 10:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Was unable to find any source of significant coverage and none has been presented here. Alvaldi (talk) 10:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of SIGCOV. Reminder to those who !voted Keep that there is no presumption of notability for players at the international or senior national level. –dlthewave ☎ 11:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Clearly passes WP:NFOOTY. Not sure what was talking about above. Seany91 (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No such thing as NFOOTY anymore Avilich (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, discussion is underway to replace NFOOTY, but we shouldn't be using the interregnum to mass AfD a bunch of articles. Seany91 (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Consensus was to get rid of it, not replace it Avilich (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I meant that there is no SNG for football; NFOOTY points to NSPORTS which requires significant coverage. Like all sports SNGs, the replacement would not presume notability, it would simply tell us that coverage is likely to exist. SIGCOV would still need to be found. –dlthewave ☎ 15:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd reiterate that there is an ongoing discussion at WP:NFOOTYNEW. It is premature and potentially wasting a lot of editors' time and energy if we collectively allow mass AfDs to occur during the interregnum. Seany91 (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not part of the guideline and it will in any case require another RfC to implement. Even if it does pass, articles will still require that GNG be met, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Nobody is forcing you to spend your time on this if you think it's a waste. Avilich (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Guidelines are only guidelines, and are written to implement long-standing consensus. And while removing NFOOTBALL might be justification to delete some marginal players, to start nominating international players on top teams, with media coverage is not appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfitz (talk • contribs) 23:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Really? You're basing your keep rationale on a nonexistant guideline??Tvx1 15:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - international player, lots of coverage. Another poor nomination. Given how poorly female African players are covered in Wikipedia, and that this player easily meets long-standing consensus, we should avoid WP:BIAS. Nfitz (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Being an international player doesn't automatically mean your notable and your lots of coverage claim is just false. Also read WP:GREATWRONGS.Tvx1 15:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: For all the keep votes, not a single source cited in the discussion to indicate GNG. Needs more time to establish a genuine consensus based on more than just votes. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: This was NAC closed and then undone as an admin action during the DRV that was clearly overturning the close. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 19:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep international player Zanoni (talk) 09:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a valid keep argument in any way.Tvx1 15:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete. "International player" is not a notability criterion (and never was!), and with the deprecation of NFOOTY it's now not even a predictor of SIGCOV. The only notability metric applicable to this player is GNG, which she does not meet. Arguments based on a deprecated subguideline should be summarily ignored -- which means the closer should disregard literally all of the keep !votes. JoelleJay (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I added a couple of references - this one in particular meets GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC has been met. Nfitz (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If that's the best of the references I don't think it makes it. GNG requires multiple sources and the coverage has to be significant. I've read the article and it doesn't seem to address the subject directly and in detail, there is very little biographical information which can be extracted. Given the nature of the source I am not sure it would have any particular reputation for fact checking and therefore overall reliability. i.e. it might be useful as one of a number of sources to meet GNG (though I think that could be challenged), but certainly I don't think it cuts it on it's own. (I'd also note unless I'm reading this wrong it suggests the article has been viewed about 1500 times, which hardly seems to speak of significant interest). The other reference seems to only note her as a goal scorer, so doesn't seem to help the GNG case--81.100.164.154 (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That looks like a good RS, but it is an article on the team in general with only a few quotes and basic biographical info on Mervat herself -- not SIGCOV. Again, SPORTBASIC requires multiple SIGCOV sources for presumption of GNG notability. JoelleJay (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not about the whole team, discussing a handful of players. There's 3 paragraphs mostly about her and her teammate, including their side-hustle. It's certainly the best reference I've found in English. Also NSPORTS and WP:SPORTBASIC were recently revised per the RFC so that Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources was added. There's no firm rule that there has to be more than one GNG source. And the last place we should ignoring this new guideline is in an article about a non-white, non-English-speaking, non-male international player! If we don't consider this new guideline when we have a triple WP:BIAS situation - when do we consider it? Nfitz (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You keep quoting that sentence, but you keep forgetting the second sentence: Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article. That guideline does not make one source sufficient to keep the article. If we can find one it means that it is worth looking further and a WP:PROD is not justified, but if we can't find more the article still needs to be deleted at AFD.
 * As for the source, I agree with JoelleJay that it is not SIGCOV of Rashwan. BilledMammal (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Then why is it even there? It's there because there are going to be situations where there are likely sufficient sources - this isn't a Canadian international player where we can easily search everything published. Obviously you are about to disagree with me - but you tell me why you think that sentence is there? Besides - the criteria failure to have multiple (or even one) GNG source isn't a firm rule. We are all aware that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted! Nfitz (talk) 04:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's there to stop articles being created without any significant coverage (per the original proposal), and it is there to make it easier to delete articles without any significant coverage (per the closer and the responses to the proposal). BilledMammal (talk) 04:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Coverage is just around the GNG line, and her sporting achievement is the type that would normally be found in an encyclopaedia. If not kept, a viable redirect target should be found (or created.) SportingFlyer  T · C  13:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per the source table above, the coverage is not significant enough to confer notability. International players are not automatically notable by community consensus, and !votes relying on that should be disregarded. And while I am all about avoiding WP:BIAS, lots of stubs about non-notable football players isn't the way to fix that. agt x  17:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as above, no significant coverage the source added isn't that persuasive for me as to if it contributes to WP:GNG at all, let alone be enough on it's own to not warrant additional good quality sources. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. No significant coverage of the subject exists. Being an international player does not yield notability by itself. Why the same people keep using that similar fallacious argument in every similar AFD despite being refuted EVERY time is beyond me.Tvx1 15:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.