Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rayan Ragab

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. Rough consensus is that sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 02:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rayan Ragab

[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)

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:NSPORT. Avilich (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: there are sources about, such as [1], [2], [3], [4]. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of these appear to meet GNG. The first is a trivial mention, the last consists of quotes therefore not independent, the third contains a remark about social media posts; overall nothing significant. Avilich (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since when was an article which quotes from the subject non-independent? Giant Snowman 19:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The last article has significant non-quote content as well Carson Wentz (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The last article has significant non-quote content that doesn't discuss her at all. The only place she is mentioned is in a quote at the end. Obviously that is not SIGCOV of her. JoelleJay (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of the sources provided by Nehme above, this seems to be the only decent one. The others each just give a sentence or so of coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per @Nehme1499:. She is clearly significant figure in Sudanese women's and international football. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I finish writing this, another 30 will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources provided by User:Nehme1499, particularly the second and fourth, provide sufficient content to pass GNG. Carson Wentz (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per User:Nehme1499Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Re the sources above; [1] is a reaction quote, [2] is the same, [3] appears to be an op-ed, [4] is a one-line quote. The sources in the article currently (including Facebook and Twitter) are not encouraging either. Appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON; fails WP:GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage in independent reliable sources. Sources provided in this AfD mostly do not qualify as significant coverage. WP:TOOSOON and fails BASIC. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Indy Beetle that the sources offered above are not sufficient coverage. The first has one independent sentence on her, the second has zero full independent sentences on her, the third is an unusable op-ed that mentions some activism in social media, and the fourth also has no coverage of her (just a quote). So combined we have...one sentence in RS discussing her independently and directly. Not even remotely close to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that the sources do not provide significant and sufficient coverage. Fats40boy11 (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete owing to a lack of multiple in-depth high quality sources with which to write an article. Fails GNG. Others have commented on the sources put forward by Nehme, these are not suitable though a couple may be useful if put forward to an article on women's football in Sudan. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2022 (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.