419:, the Article in English Knowledge about a sister project i.e. Egyptian Arabic Knowledge is not violating any of the policies set by Knowledge, It is not violating any copyrights, it is not an advertising for the website as Egyptian Knowledge 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 Knowledge project that merits an article of its own.--
646:'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 Knowledge 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 Knowledge, which satisfies
290:
Knowledge 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.
528:
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
606:
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).
368:. There are independent sources that discuss this Knowledge -- mostly blogs, but at least some people have taken notice of the Egyptian Arabic Knowledge, for better or for worse. In the past I have recommended redirecting articles about other language Wikipedias to
291:
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.
377:
about the
Egyptian Arabic Knowledge. The English Knowledge does not have articles about all other languages' editions of Knowledge, just some of them, and the Egyptian Arabic Knowledge itself is not going to go away regardless of how this discussion ends.
260:
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
87:
82:
187:
372:
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 Knowledge should have a separate
551:
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
77:
510:
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.
181:
147:
142:
395:
583:
Thanks for your comment. I fully understand your point ,however, there are many other sources , that you recognise as reliable, talking about wikipedia masry. --
440:
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
115:
110:
119:
102:
710:
679:
660:
633:
616:
592:
572:
538:
519:
428:
410:
385:
360:
322:
300:
282:
252:
235:
60:
202:
169:
353:
529:
requirements or not? . The other thing is has the decision been made already to delete the article no matter what is written?--
17:
106:
163:
227:
159:
559:
if you would like more information on what is considered reliable sources. To answer the last question you had: see
218:
Non-notable
Internet encyclopedia with <10,000 articles. Most coverage is from Wikimedia projects or Facebook. —
725:
270:
209:
98:
66:
36:
499:
Knowledge Masry has been subject to controversy from the start, causing arguments between supporter and opposers
724:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
657:
568:
515:
382:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
310:
231:
175:
350:
651:
564:
511:
424:
379:
195:
702:
369:
335:
296:
612:
507:
441:
406:
318:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
706:
688:
525:
339:
266:
701:
from the
Shorouk News. These two sources, as pointed out by Hekerui, establish notability.
588:
534:
343:
278:
223:
496:
This leaves us with one reliable source, Moheet.com. Based on this, the article can read
693:
629:
602:
420:
338:. Deletion is not necessary when an article can be converted to a redirect -- and per
262:
51:
563:, we are determining the fate through this discussion. Nothing has been decided yet.
698:
675:
647:
560:
292:
608:
552:
503:
437:
402:
314:
246:
136:
556:
643:
584:
530:
274:
219:
625:
464:, which makes it an opinion article, and not able to establish notability.
670:
547:
Regarding Yahoo/Google
Answers, these don't establish notability because
718:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
88:
Articles for deletion/Egyptian Arabic
Knowledge (3rd nomination)
83:
Articles for deletion/Egyptian Arabic Knowledge (2nd nomination)
668:
There are now sufficient sources to show the notability.
462:
Debate between the Egyptian bloggers on Knowledge Egyptian
460:#5 looks to be a good source, but the article is called
454:#3 is a very passing mention, not significant coverage.
451:#1 and #2 are wikipedia/wikimedia links - not reliable.
445:
132:
128:
124:
194:
444:. 'I like it' is not a reason to keep an article.
244:
Minor wiki without sufficient independent coverage.
457:#4 does not mention the Egyptian Arabic Knowledge.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
728:). No further edits should be made to this page.
78:Articles for deletion/Egyptian Arabic Knowledge
396:list of Websites-related deletion discussions
208:
8:
309:This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing
480:#11 - moheet.com seems to be a good source.
342:, unnecessary deletions are to be avoided.—
524:Ref no 10 is not a dead end , and it is a
390:
486:#14 is a personal webpage - not reliable.
474:#7, #8 & #9 are blogs, not reliable.
394:: This debate has been included in the
448:there are 16 citations in the article.
75:
269:). It also has more articles than the
7:
434:Delete or Redirect (per S Marshall)
73:
24:
483:#12 & #13 are facebook pages.
273:wich has a page on enwikipedia.--
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
561:WP:AfD#How to discuss an AfD
745:
711:04:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
680:03:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
661:13:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
634:00:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
617:21:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
593:11:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
573:01:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
539:09:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
520:02:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
502:Bottom line, we need more
429:17:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
61:07:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
411:19:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
386:16:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
361:15:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
323:14:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
301:10:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
283:16:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
271:Dutch Low Saxon Knowledge
253:06:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
236:06:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
99:Egyptian Arabic Knowledge
67:Egyptian Arabic Knowledge
721:Please do not modify it.
489:#15 & #16 are blogs.
32:Please do not modify it.
471:(come on... seriously?)
501:
436:, (see below) We need
72:AfDs for this article:
638:Changing my !vote to
497:
313:). It is listed now.
526:very reliable source
477:#10 is a dead link.
267:Hebdo.ahram.org .eg
370:List of Wikipedias
336:List of Wikipedias
44:The result was
656:
413:
399:
59:
736:
723:
655:(LiberalFascist)
654:
624:: not notable --
504:reliable sources
438:reliable sources
400:
358:
348:
249:
213:
212:
198:
150:
140:
122:
58:
56:
49:
34:
744:
743:
739:
738:
737:
735:
734:
733:
732:
726:deletion review
719:
357:
354:
344:
263:Al-Ahram Hebdo
247:
155:
146:
113:
97:
94:
92:
70:
52:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
742:
740:
731:
730:
714:
713:
694:Al-Ahram Hebdo
682:
663:
636:
619:
603:Al-Ahram Hebdo
595:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
565:— Joshua Scott
542:
541:
493:
492:
491:
490:
487:
484:
481:
478:
475:
472:
465:
458:
455:
452:
431:
414:
388:
380:Metropolitan90
363:
355:
328:
327:
326:
325:
304:
303:
285:
255:
220:Justin (koavf)
216:
215:
152:
148:AfD statistics
93:
91:
90:
85:
80:
74:
71:
69:
64:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
741:
729:
727:
722:
716:
715:
712:
708:
704:
700:
696:
695:
690:
686:
683:
681:
677:
673:
672:
667:
664:
662:
659:
653:
649:
645:
641:
637:
635:
631:
627:
623:
620:
618:
614:
610:
605:
604:
599:
596:
594:
590:
586:
582:
581:
574:
570:
566:
562:
558:
554:
550:
546:
545:
544:
543:
540:
536:
532:
527:
523:
522:
521:
517:
513:
509:
505:
500:
495:
494:
488:
485:
482:
479:
476:
473:
470:
469:Yahoo Answers
466:
463:
459:
456:
453:
450:
449:
447:
443:
439:
435:
432:
430:
426:
422:
418:
415:
412:
408:
404:
397:
393:
389:
387:
384:
381:
376:
371:
367:
364:
362:
359:
351:
349:
347:
341:
337:
333:
330:
329:
324:
320:
316:
312:
308:
307:
306:
305:
302:
298:
294:
289:
286:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
259:
256:
254:
251:
250:
243:
240:
239:
238:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
211:
207:
204:
201:
197:
193:
189:
186:
183:
180:
177:
174:
171:
168:
165:
161:
158:
157:Find sources:
153:
149:
144:
138:
134:
130:
126:
121:
117:
112:
108:
104:
100:
96:
95:
89:
86:
84:
81:
79:
76:
68:
65:
63:
62:
57:
55:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
720:
717:
699:this article
692:
689:this article
684:
669:
665:
652:Joshua Scott
639:
621:
601:
597:
548:
512:Joshua Scott
498:
468:
461:
433:
416:
391:
374:
365:
345:
331:
287:
257:
245:
241:
217:
205:
199:
191:
184:
178:
172:
166:
156:
53:
45:
43:
31:
28:
182:free images
508:WP:ILIKEIT
442:WP:ILIKEIT
346:S Marshall
54:Sandstein
691:from the
506:and less
446:Currently
421:Ramsis II
403:• Gene93k
340:WP:BEFORE
332:Redirect
293:Samsam22
143:View log
609:Hekerui
375:article
315:DumbBOT
248:MBisanz
188:WP refs
176:scholar
116:protect
111:history
703:Cunard
648:WP:GNG
642:given
622:Delete
549:anyone
467:#6 is
383:(talk)
311:step 3
242:Delete
160:Google
120:delete
676:talk
644:Ghaly
585:Ghaly
553:WP:RS
531:Ghaly
275:Ghaly
203:JSTOR
164:books
137:views
129:watch
125:links
16:<
707:talk
697:and
687:per
685:Keep
666:Keep
658:talk
640:Keep
630:talk
626:Dyaa
613:talk
600:The
598:Keep
589:talk
569:talk
557:WP:V
555:and
535:talk
516:talk
425:talk
417:Keep
407:talk
392:Note
366:Keep
356:Cont
319:talk
297:talk
288:keep
279:talk
258:Keep
196:FENS
170:news
133:logs
107:talk
103:edit
46:keep
671:DGG
401:--
334:to
210:TWL
145:•
141:– (
709:)
678:)
632:)
615:)
591:)
571:)
537:)
518:)
427:)
409:)
398:.
378:--
321:)
299:)
281:)
234:☯
190:)
135:|
131:|
127:|
123:|
118:|
114:|
109:|
105:|
48:.
705:(
674:(
650:—
628:(
611:(
587:(
567:(
533:(
514:(
423:(
405:(
352:/
317:(
295:(
277:(
265:(
232:M
230:☺
228:C
226:☮
224:T
222:❤
214:)
206:·
200:·
192:·
185:·
179:·
173:·
167:·
162:(
154:(
151:)
139:)
101:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.