Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia (3rd 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 Speedy Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This wiki does not have a lot of articles compared with other non-English wikis like the German or Spanish wikipedias. TheChampionMan1234 03:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well-referenced article about a notable Wikipedia. The lack of a "large number of articles" is not a valid argument for deletion and their is no basis for comparison to the German or Spanish Wikipedias. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The nomination does not state a valid basis for deletion, and the article already cites numerous sources that make a clear case for its notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – This nomination does not contain a valid rationale for deletion, per WP:DEL-REASON. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nomination does not propose a policy based rationale for deletion. KTC (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias - while the nomination is indeed not based in policy, since the discussion is here, I do not belive this is a sufficiently notable Wikipedia for a stand-alone article. Many of the 'well-referenced' references appear not to be reliable sources; among them are WP:ELNO Facebook pages and Wikipedia pages. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This has been discussed before and most of the sources are credible. --Ghaly (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2012 (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.