Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia (2nd nomination)

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. Sandstein 07:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Internet encyclopedia with <10,000 articles. Most coverage is from Wikimedia projects or Facebook. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor wiki without sufficient independent coverage. MBisanz ^talk 06:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is about the first wikipedia directed to Egyptian readers, developing quickly and caused a lot of controversy even during proposal stage, starting debate that is referenced using independent sources including an article published in Al-Ahram Hebdo (Hebdo.ahram.org .eg). It also has more articles than the Dutch Low Saxon Wikipedia wich has a page on enwikipedia.--Ghaly (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Wikipedia Masri is not only written in the language of the Egyptians for the Egyptian readers but it is also a secular wiki, something very important in a region dominated by religious and fanatical torment. Masri wiki came under attack from these corners, but it took the challenge and grew steadily. It would be really sad and very bad for the intellectual world if it be deleted. Please show me a historical article on egyptian wiki that was taken over from another project. On the contrary, other projects copied articles from masri wiki, as it is, in Egyptian. Samsam22 (talk) 10:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Wikipedias. Deletion is not necessary when an article can be converted to a redirect -- and per WP:BEFORE, unnecessary deletions are to be avoided.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are independent sources that discuss this Wikipedia -- mostly blogs, but at least some people have taken notice of the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia, for better or for worse. In the past I have recommended redirecting articles about other language Wikipedias to List of Wikipedias because of a lack of independent sources. That's not the case here. By the way, participants in this discussion should keep in mind that all we are discussing here is whether the English Wikipedia should have a separate article about the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia does not have articles about all other languages' editions of Wikipedia, just some of them, and the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia itself is not going to go away regardless of how this discussion ends. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Article in English Wikipedia about a sister project i.e. Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia is not violating any of the policies set by Wikipedia, It is not violating any copyrights, it is not an advertising for the website as Egyptian Wikipedia has already created a lot of discussions and arguments both on Meta pages and in many other blogs outside the wikimedia foundation.The rate of growth of Egyptian wikipedia should be taken into consideration as creating 5080 articles in only one year and few months should be meaning that many users are interested in contrbituing towards its growth,Egyptian Arabic wikipedia has 7,996 registered users , and the article in question has been edited 107 times by 32 different users all these little pieces of information can be put together to make a bigger more wholisic picture of sister Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia project that merits an article of its own.--Ramsis II (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or Redirect (per S Marshall)~~, (see below) We need reliable sources that provide significant coverage, and are independent of the subject. I would like to see some keep arguments that point to policy and guidelines, rather than WP:ILIKEIT. 'I like it' is not a reason to keep an article. Currently there are 16 citations in the article.
- #1 and #2 are wikipedia/wikimedia links - not reliable.
- #3 is a very passing mention, not significant coverage.
- #4 does not mention the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia.
- #5 looks to be a good source, but the article is called Debate between the Egyptian bloggers on Wikipedia Egyptian, which makes it an opinion article, and not able to establish notability.
- #6 is Yahoo Answers (come on... seriously?)
- #7, #8 & #9 are blogs, not reliable.
- #10 is a dead link.
- #11 - moheet.com seems to be a good source.
- #12 & #13 are facebook pages.
- #14 is a personal webpage - not reliable.
- #15 & #16 are blogs.

This leaves us with one reliable source, Moheet.com. Based on this, the article can read

Wikipedia Masry has been subject to controversy from the start, causing arguments between supporter and opposers

Bottom line, we need more reliable sources and less WP:ILIKEIT as arguments in this discussion. I didn't find any more sources in my searching, so unless someone can produce some, policy, and community consensus indicate redirection or deletion. Joshua Scott (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref no 10 is not a dead end , and it is a very reliable source Al-Ahram is a well known newspapaer, and ref 5 is a good source, this means three good sources, not just one. What is the problem with having yahoo answer and google answers as ref for notability? It is notable enoughto cause such a debate. The argument is ; does wikipedia masry meet notability requirements or not? . The other thing is has the decision been made already to delete the article no matter what is written?--Ghaly (talk) 09:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Yahoo/Google Answers, these don't establish notability because anyone could post anything that they wish (within the Terms of Use). Thus, if I were to post a question about my uncle Bob, would he suddenly be notable? Not a chance. You should take some time to read WP:RS and WP:V if you would like more information on what is considered reliable sources. To answer the last question you had: see WP:AfD#How to discuss an AfD, we are determining the fate through this discussion. Nothing has been decided yet. — Joshua Scott (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I fully understand your point ,however, there are many other sources , that you recognise as reliable, talking about wikipedia masry. --Ghaly (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Al-Ahram Hebdo source is a reliable source and shows that there is interest and controversy regarding this topic in Egypt, and the Shorouk News source concerning the same seems legit to me (I google-translated their "about" section and the website seems strung to an actual newspaper). Hekerui (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable --Dyaa (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my !vote to Keep given Ghaly's find of another good source. There seems to be some debate over whether Egyptian Arabic is a separate language, or just a dialect. The creation of the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia seems to have caused a notable amount of debate over whether or not it should have been created, for this dialect/language reason. There seems to be 2-3 reliable sources which are primarily about the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia, which satisfies WP:GNG —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 13:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are now sufficient sources to show the notability. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this article from the Al-Ahram Hebdo and this article from the Shorouk News. These two sources, as pointed out by Hekerui, establish notability. Cunard (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2010 (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.