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. Consensus has tended towards a view the article should be improved instead of deleted, which has been backed up by the editing of it during the debate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arabeyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Not a notable software project. Probably defunct, though there isn't enough coverage to know for sure. No independent sources in the article and nothing found. The previous AFD (from 2008) claimed there were sources (possibly in Arabic), but none of the links work now. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Link rot is no reason to delete. Was notable before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect, the verdict was "no consensus" before (rather than being found to be notable). MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• https://www.arabeyes.org/Press might result in some coverage. Dream Focus 16:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Excellent. Clippings Lots of sources. Easily meets WP:GNG. Notability not transitory. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@7&6=thirteen: I'm really interested to hear why you think the first two articles in that list of "excellent clippings" easily meets GNG. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Second-hand coverage here is marginal at best. Wikipedia is not an almanac of everything that has ever existed, and "notability is not transitive" does not mean that an article which survives a single deletion nomination is immune to future ones. @7&6=thirteen: needs better arguments. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Unix/Linux language-support projects are notable. Adequate press coverage is listed at [1], the fact that this coverage hasn't yet been integrated as article sources doesn't magically render the subject non-notable. Skyerise (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I looked through the sources in the link provided by the last keep voter. They are all either primary, extremely trivial, not even about Arabeyes, or are otherwise unusable as a way to establish notability. That's the problem with assuming things are notable based on news aggregator hits and article titles. Usually the references are trash. I urge voters to read through what's available and to share specific sources that they think meet the notability guidelines. Instead of wasting people's time linking to unusable trash like the last voter did. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per Adamant1, the sources have various issues and therefore the WP:NPRODUCT threshold is not met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there are more than WP:THREE: Arabian Computer News 2002, Gulf News 2003, ITP 2004, Cover story in IT-republic 2004, and Al-Riyadh 2005, for example, all of which come from the (ahem) "unusable trash" already linked above. Levivich 21:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Levivich: The only reference out of those that is usable is the first one. The others are interviews, about OpenOffice (which I'm pretty sure this isn't), and a self published PR piece. So, aside from the first references, the others are clearly trash. Or are you seriously going to argue those are quality, notability providing references? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Your description of these sources is not accurate. Levivich 13:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The second article literally says "interview" at the top of it and if you look at the 5th page of Cover story in IT-republic 2004 article the first sentence says "copyright 2002, Arabeyes Project Etc. etc." So I'd love to know what's not accurate about describing those sources as an interview and a self published PR piece. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That would still leave three. This argumentation you're doing right here is why you're going to end up tbanned from deletion. This is not a debate club. If you don't think the sources people put forward meet GNG, then say why, and then shut up. Skip calling them "trash", skip replying with things like "are you seriously going to argue", and skip cherrypicking two out of five as if that proves something. Levivich 06:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chill out and AGF. I was just trying to understand what was wrong about my description so I can better describe things next time. I don't want to call a source a self published PR piece if that's not what it is. Next time I won't ask you how something that says "interview" at the top of it isn't an interview. I'll trying not to call bad references trash if you it triggers you that much either. OK? I agree that this shouldn't necessarily be a debate and I don't want anyone's hurt feelings over the words I use to describe their non-notable references to turn it into one. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Some of the sources seem legitimate. Dream Focus 21:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources do you believe establish notability for Arabeyes please? MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The two posting above me agree that at least one of the sources counts. In the previous AFD articles at https://www.linux.com/?s=Arabeyes were mentioned. https://www.linux.com/news/arabeyesorg-named-best-freeopen-project/ and the rest are enough to convince me. Dream Focus 11:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. Personally I do not think they are sufficiently independent. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I feel the sources already shared establish notability. this reference is hosted at their own address, it appears to be a scan of a magazine and thus could be considered independent. This article also appears to be SIGCOV. Finally, the project has had regular coverage in print and online publications. NemesisAT (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Article and sourcing is not what it was when nominated for deletion. The reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arabeyes still applies. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article subject looked like a notable to me when I first seen it on the delsort list a few days ago. Handing some of languages with less straightforward character sets were a nightmare twenty years ago but unicode, google translate, improved OS support have made things relatively seemless. I stayed away as it was going to require work to save, and it has been with better sources and is a worthy keep. Thankyou to those who have improved the article and identified additional sources. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep There's been some improvements to the article since it was nominated. Although some of it is of extremely questionable quality, when combined with the 1 or 2 references that are usable I'm willing to go with a weak keep "vote." Although I can see where someone might still be able to argue for deleting the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2021 (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.