Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esraa Owis

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 keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Esraa Owis

[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:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Egypt. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, many sources exist under her Arabic name "اسراء عويس". Multiple-time major international championship gold medallist so clearly meets WP:NATH. I added the first two to the article. --Habst (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that it could be difficult to find sources in English language media. She may be notable as an Arab woman athlete winning medals in African championships and qualifying for the Summer Olympics. Nnev66 (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has sources and the nomination does not indicate that any effort was put behind it. I.e. effort might have been put behind it, but it isn't shown. Geschichte (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search in Arabic on Arabic news sites only returned routine, trivial event announcements (e.g. 0–3-sentence lightly-refactored boilerplate text announcing results 1 2 3 4 5 6). Nothing approaching the in-depth secondary independent commentary required to be cited in all sportsperson articles. There is explicitly no carve-out for athletes that allows us to assume IRS SIGCOV exists when no such sources have been identified. The whole point of SPORTCRIT #5 is to ensure that athlete bios are not based on achievements or participation, as those criteria were deprecated by global consensus. JoelleJay (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thanks for doing the research and finding those sources. I think that if we combine the paragraphs to establish notability (which is allowed per WP:NBASIC), we have a good case to be made here. The consensus you're referring to established by WP:NSPORTS2022 actually supports keeping this article, because it says to keep sports notability criteria as long as it's not participation based (i.e. simply attending a meet). But in Owis' case, she has won multiple major international medals which goes beyond simply participating. I think you are conflating achievements with participation. --Habst (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NSPORTS2022 established global consensus that, regardless of achievements and regardless of meeting a sport-specific guideline, all athletes must cite a source with IRS SIGCOV. Trivial and routine coverage does not establish notability, and that is the extent of what can be found on this athlete. JoelleJay (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thanks, the NSPORTS2022 closure actually does not say anything about IRS, and it in fact says, There is a general consensus that the NSPORTS guideline still has broad community support. At the time that statement was made, this is what NSPORTS looked like: Special:Diff/1076787937.

Regardless, if we combine the found articles from multiple independent organizations (not just the Koora sources) we can certainly say the coverage is significant in this case fulfilling WP:SPORTCRIT prong #5. Coverage about a hometown athlete qualifying for the Olympics is not routine -- there are strict qualifying standards and there is no guarantee or schedule of such an event occurring. --Habst (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence is in the context of deprecating NSPORT entirely, it is obviously not stating that NSPORT as it was is supported in toto. SPORTCRIT #5 requires a source providing significant coverage, it does not say "a combination of sources adding up to SIGCOV". And I've literally never seen anyone attempt the argument that this clause doesn't require the SIGCOV to be IRS.
Coverage of people in non-routine events can absolutely still be routine. NOTNEWS does not limit this in any way. What has been found so far is not even personalized "hometown coverage", it's churnalized results announcements with no more than three boilerplate sentences apiece originating from the same news source. That is not GNG and is not even an indication of GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, yes the sentence argues for the opposite of deprecating NSPORT -- it says to keep it in place, which it currently is. SPORTCRIT prong 5 could certainly be filled by combining sources as NBASIC allows for, however it's important to note that has no bearing on whether or not WP:NATH is fulfilled (which it clearly is in this case via criterion 2, multiple gold medals at major competitions).

Using a search for "اسراء عويس", I see four different news stories on just the first page of Google results (Paris Olympics - Israa Owais finishes her competitions in the qualifiers, Who is Israa Awis? | Profile, The Pharaohs in Paris.. Israa Owais bids farewell to the Olympic Games competitions, Israa Owais, the track and field athlete, officially qualifies for the Olympics). If you consider all of these "churnalism", then surely the series of at least three in-person interview clips conducted by ONTime Sports ([1] [2] [3]) would count as sufficiently journalistic sources? One of them looks to be a 26-minute news segment all about the subject.

There are more on page 2: Egypt's champion Israa Owais, Israa Owais wins gold in triathlon in athletics at the..., After 3 successful attempts, jumper Israa Awis fails in..., Israa Owais wins gold in long jump at Arab Games, “A golden heroine”... Israa Owais, the owner of historical achievements in, Israa Owais wins gold in triathlon at Arab Games, Israa Awis, Israa Owais after saying goodbye to the Olympics: Enough negative talk, it's making me nervous, Israa Owais ranks 15th in the long jump competition, Sports News: Israa Owais bids farewell to the Games in.... These are all from different sources.

There's also a 30-minute TV interview with her here from Al Ahly TV: Full interview | Israa Owais.. Al-Ahly player and Egypt national team star

This is all just in the first 2 pages of results. I really don't think there's a question that the notability guideline is met, it's just that the sources are mostly in Arabic so we'll need to translate them for inclusion in the article. Honestly, I have yet to find a recent Olympian in athletics who doesn't meet the bar with some digging; the Olympics still have significant cultural purchase and athletics is the marquee sport so typically if someone qualifies, the coverage is there. --Habst (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SPORTCRIT prong 5 could certainly be filled by combining sources as NBASIC allows for This is absolutely not true. There is no logical reading of at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage that supports your claim that multiple non-SIGCOV sources can constitute "a source providing SIGCOV". The community !voted to override NBASIC in the case of sportspeople in an RfC that was much more recent and global; that takes precedence.
You are refbombing more routine trivial announcementsd. No number of functionally identical three-sentence results updates can amount to SIGCOV. 1: Israa Awis ended her competitions in the high jump qualifiers without qualifying for the final stage. Israa Owais is participating in the Olympics for the first time in her career. Israa Awis achieved a record of 6.20 metres after three successful attempts. This is on a site with no evidence of editorial control, attributed to someone with only two articles total, and identical to pieces on other sites that each also claim a byline. 2: This is a trash webscraper/UGS. 3: Israa Owais, the national team player and strongman, bid farewell to the long jump competitions, within the Olympic Games competitions hosted by Paris. Israa managed to jump to a height of 6.20 meters, coming in fifteenth place in the first group. Essentially the same announcement as 1. 4: This is the same 3-sentence article I linked earlier. 5: This is literally just a picture of her on a government website (not independent, not SIGCOV).
In-person interviews are primary and non-independent. Per policy: The University of Nevada, Reno Libraries define primary sources as providing "an inside view of a particular event". They offer as examples: original documents, such as autobiographies, diaries, e-mail, interviews,
Al Ahly TV is her own sports organization, so that interview obviously fails as primary and non-independent in multiple ways.
If this is the extent of the coverage you're finding on her, then we are severely lacking in anything approaching SPORTCRIT. JoelleJay (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thanks for your response.

Re: paragraph 1, The community !voted to override NBASIC in the case of sportspeople -- Can you please link to the not-vote where this happened? From my read this isn't what happened in NSPORTS2022. Reading WP:NSPORTS2022, NBASIC is only mentioned once and it's not in the context of overriding it. They are separate policies and broad over-arching guidelines like WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC still apply even where more subject-specific guidelines exist.

Re: WP:REFBOMBing -- As an English speaker, I simply can't read all of the sources I am finding in Arabic, so I pasted the plausible ones here so that someone who does speak Arabic can look them over. Also, WP:REFBOMB only refers to putting unnecessary citations in an article. There's nothing wrong with linking many sources in an AfD discussion. In fact, I think they should all be addressed -- I see you left comments on five of the sources, but there are still 13 on just the first two pages of results that need to be looked at.

Re: In-person interviews are primary and non-independent -- This simply isn't supported by Wikipedia policy. I recently had a discussion about an unrelated article with an admin just this week about this, and this is what they said this week at Special:Diff/1245933378:

I think what will help with precedent is getting the interview issue settled. It has come up more and more often and I think it's unsettled. My personal (editor, not admin) POV is that if X media outlet chooses to interview someone, there's something there.

The quote that you're citing and have cited in past discussions is not directly from any Wikipedia policy, but is from a sub-bullet of a footnote of a section of WP:PRIMARY. The word "interview" is in fact never mentioned in the Wikipedia-voice text on that page other than to say that interviews depend on context. So, taking context into consideration, what can we say about the 26-minute ONTime Sports news segment (plus various clips) and the 30-minute Al Ahly TV news segment, both of which seem to be solely about Owis?

Quoting the admin comment on this issue, Is Ojala (or anyone in comparable position) being interviewed as a matter of post match interviews, or is it more substantive? We would expect post-match interviews to be only five or six minutes and only focusing on the game -- instead, these interviews are much longer and were conducted in what seems to be an in-studio news segment setting. I want to emphasize clearly that we need the assistance of an Arabic speaker to say much more, but it seems like a lot exists here for Arabic speakers.

I think the pieces for meeting SPORTCRIT and GNG have been presented. Can you explain why all 15 sources are "severely lacking"? --Habst (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You found one closer who holds the idiosyncratic opinion that interviews can somehow count towards GNG based on "the fact that they chose to interview them" rather than anything about the interview content being IRS SIGCOV. But you can't just claim that their close reflects any sort of consensus or even suggests broader disagreement while simultaneously ignoring the far more prevalent examples of closes supporting the view that only the secondary, independent material in an interview may count toward GNG. How could content that someone says about themselves ever be secondary and independent, anyway? And I know you're aware of these examples since I've linked them to you in the past, so why are you only now accepting admin AfD judgments as evidence of consensus? 1: The result was delete. Interviews are primary sources so the delete argument is the policy based one. 2: admin nom statement This article on a tattoo artist is sourced mainly from interviews. Being primary sources, they don't help us establish his notability. 3: admin nom: There are interviews, and a number of performance listings but nothing independent, or significant enough. 4: The result was delete. I am more persuaded by the delete arguments around the necessity of independent sourcing for a BLP then keep arguments that articles that are basically interviews are independent. 5: The "keeps" are largely based on the slew of references provided early on in the discussion; however, nobody arguing to keep has presented evidence here as to how these sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. The argument that interviews are admissible is an oversimplification; interviews may count toward GNG when they have intellectually independent content; that has not been demonstrated here. 6: admin nom: referenced entirely to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and Q&A interviews that cannot support notability with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all.
The WP:OR treatment of interviews is still policy. Just because specific examples of primary sources are listed in the footnotes does not mean they "aren't policy".
It is absolutely acceptable to characterize someone's behavior at AfD as "refbombing". It is breathtakingly entitled for you to dump a bunch of sources that you haven't even read and insist that other editors must prove each of them to be insufficient. JoelleJay (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thanks for finding these links.

I was actually having an unrelated discussion with the administrator when they opined on interviews unprompted -- I wasn't looking to find a point of view one way or the other and I'm trying to enter discussions with an open mind. It seems intuitive to me that if a reputable news organization conducts a long-form interview, that speaks to the notability of the subject, and I haven't been able to find any Wikipedia policy contradicting that practice here.

I am still curious about the justification for discounting interviews. The only mention you cited earlier, in WP:PRIMARY, doesn't mention interviews in the policy text, and the only mention in a footnote says, other opinion pieces, including (depending on context) reviews and interviews as examples of what could be a primary source. Surely a lengthy news segment interview on a subject would fall under "depending on context" and could be used to establish notability? Also, the way the footnote is written, it makes it seem like only opinion-piece interviews are discussed and not news interviews.

Looking at the links, 1) doesn't contain any news interviews, 2) only comments that the particular interviews used were primary and does not make a sweeping claim about all interviews, 3) doesn't seem to contain any news interviews but instead promotional interviews for his books (?), 4) makes no comment about interviews in general, 5) actually says interviews may count toward GNG when they have intellectually independent content which I think should be met in this case, and 6) only speaks to specific "Q&A interviews" but not news interviews nor interviews in general.

Re: Refbombing, I don't think it's productive to say that other editors are providing too many citations in AfD discussions where the point of the discussion is to evaluate sources. I plan on making a best effort at translation, but the reason why I linked and will continue to link sources in AfDs without being excessive is to see what the community thinks about them even if neither of us can read Arabic natively. I greatly respect your encyclopedic contributions and hope you can extend the same respect to me and can refrain from making personal comments.

Acknowledging that "interviews may count towards GNG" if conditions are met, can we discuss the substance of the news interviews found so far, or if not them, then the other undiscussed sources linked? --Habst (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "wikipedia [guideline] contradicting this practice" is the one that requires the coverage to be substantial, independent, and secondary. An org's choice to interview someone is not any of that.
Seriously, what can you possibly consider independent and secondary in any of those interviews? The subject speaking about herself is, by definition, non-independent and primary, thus it is absolutely ineligible for GNG consideration.
You think bombarding editors with a bunch of links you haven't even read and demanding they prove that each one of them fails GNG is acceptable behavior?? JoelleJay (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, yes, I do think that interviews can be substantial and secondary depending on how they are conducted, particularly if they are conducted as part of news segments as appears to be the case here.

Because neither of us knows Arabic, I'm not sure we can say for sure that about the content of the interviews. Maybe we should discuss the interview issues not pertaining to this specific case in a separate venue to not clutter this discussion? Either way, I think we should temper the language and behavioral accusations and focus on the article. With respect, --Habst (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Live interviews are 100% primary. JoelleJay (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I just don't think Wikipedia policy ever says this as a blanket statement, for example the comments by the interviewer about the subject would certainly not be primary. Most interviews then would not fall under that bucket. --Habst (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on this specific case, but in response to your claim: [That notability can be established through NBASIC for sportspeople] is absolutely not true ... The community !voted to override NBASIC in the case of sportspeople in an RfC that was much more recent and global; that takes precedence. – No, the community absolutely did not !vote to override the notability guideline for people, as said by the user who established SPORTCRIT in the first place: this provision was intended to aid us in expunging the plethora of sub-stubs sourced to databases and lacking any significant coverage that would allow us to write a well-rounded biography ... SPORTBASIC #5 was never intended, nor should it be misused, to trump or overrule the more general, overarching rule. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for everyone else's clarity, right after your quoted sentences Cbl62 noted that he has only seen one instance in two years where NBASIC was sufficient in the absence of a SPORTCRIT #5 source. That is hardly an endorsement of using scattered three-sentence announcements for NBASIC. JoelleJay (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not necessarily saying that this article passes NBASIC. I'm saying that the statement of the community !vot[ing] to override NBASIC in the case of sportspeople is incorrect. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources added by Habst appear to be good enough (via reading a rough translation) for meeting the WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Let'srun (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Let'srun, the first link has three brief sentences announcing her event results. That is routine news coverage on its own, but it's also clearly lacking in any secondary analysis as the specifics are just substituted into the boilerplate announcements put out by Kooora and Kas News for every athlete at every competition. You can look at the links I provided to see the identical formatting, and also compare to the contemporaneous announcements put out for others in her cohort. They are pure fluff.
Kooora:
Israa Owais, the Egyptian track and field player, won the gold medal in the long jump competition at the Arab Games held in Algeria. Israa Owais succeeded in winning the gold medal after achieving a distance of 6.54 meters in the competitions held on Tuesday evening in the Algerian city of Oran.
Kooora:
Mostafa Amr, a player in the Egyptian track and field team, won the gold medal in the shot put competition at the Arab Games held in Algeria from July 5 to 15. Amr succeeded in winning the gold medal at the Arab Games after achieving a distance of 20.52 meters in the competitions held today in the city of Oran, Algeria.
Run-of-the-mill sports announcements are not enough to demonstrate notability, and athletes are required to have a source of IRS SIGCOV cited in the article. A 3-sentence blurb that contains nothing beyond the results of an event is certainly not enough to meet SPORTSCRIT. The second piece is by the same news agency as the first (the Kooora piece is functionally identical to a Kas News piece) and so these definitely don't even constitute "multiple" sources of coverage.
Kas News:
Israa Owais, a player in the Egyptian track and field team, won the gold medal in the long jump competition at the Arab Games currently being held in Algeria. Israa Awis succeeded in winning the gold medal in the Arab Games after achieving a distance of 6.54 meters in the competitions held today in the city of Oran, Algeria.
Per policy: For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage
Per WP:N: It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source. JoelleJay (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have none of the keep !voters actually read any of the proposed sources...? JoelleJay (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as easily meets WP:BASIC and WP:NATH and WP:HEY. Winner of multiple medals at major international competitions, including 2 gold medals (both long jump and triple jump) at the 2023 Arab Games; silver medal at the 2022 Mediterranean Games; bronze medal at the 2022 African Championships in Athletics. Many pieces of secondary coverage focused on Esraa Owis and her accomplishments identified by Habst above, a few of which have been added to the article, which has been expanded. For English speakers, have also added the 2022 article in The National, which discusses how she overcame an ankle injury that nearly ruined her career to become the first woman representing Egypt to win a silver medal in the long jump in the Mediterranean Games. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it would be a bit ridiculous if an athlete winning gold medals at a major event wasn't notable. For me, the interview thing has always been a slightly silly argument. If a major news publication has interviewed a subject, that indicates they think the subject is notable and worth interviewing. Unless there is evidence that it is just PR and fill, there has been an editorial decision to interview this person rather than all the other possible people they could feature. JMWt (talk) 08:38, 27 September 2024 (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.