Almaany: No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG.   Of the two references, one is a link to their own website and the other does not appear to even mention them much less cover them.  North8000 ( talk ) 22:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Websites .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is THE most important online dictionary of Arabic, even though there are few sources.  For the source published by Springer Nature , a simple command/ctrl + F search will reveal mention in section 5.4: A table of synonyms is built as a prototype for testing the proposed method.  It includes synonyms from different linguistic resources: the Arabic WordNet (AWN), Almaany (2014) and Parkinson (2005).  Although there is a paucity of sources, deleting this article does not improve Wikipedia.  إيان ( talk ) 23:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] إيان please drop whatever sources you do have in here, so we can better make up our mind.  Drmies ( talk ) 01:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They're in the article.  Do you want to copy and paste them here in this AfD discussion?  إيان ( talk ) 12:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What?  Whoa, hold the horses.  The nominating editor really should look into a subject before nominating a new (June 2023) stub article concerning it for deletion.  His not knowing anything about the subject doesn't make it non-notable.  I've added more info and cited several academic sources.  It is a very notable subject in morphological and lexicographic research.  I presently see nine high-quality academic sources, if the predatory journal bot doesn't read it as a false positive and remove the last one I added. ;-) Carlstak ( talk ) 03:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please note the "New" in NPP (New Page Patrol).   Ideally happens a a few months, in this case it was at 6 months.  North8000 ( talk ) 14:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] addendum: Oh, I see in the edit history that Headbomb (an appropriate username;-) has already removed the source I added last once before.  His bot is not infallible, and many of the assessments made in the list it is based on are quite subjective with notable scholarly dissent.  He sometimes deletes worthy sources.  Carlstak ( talk ) 03:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've left the info but removed the cite because the International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications does look a bit sketchy, even though the paper is good and by respectable academic researchers.  Note that Headbomb's removals are based on Beall's List , whose compiler, librarian Jeffrey Beall , has retracted the list.  Carlstak ( talk ) 04:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Commenting .  For me, at first glance, it appears significant, but a thorough analysis of sources and local books is necessary.  It possible the subject is worth being on Wikipedia.  -- Old-AgedKid ( talk ) 14:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning towards keep Weighed in below as keep.    Much material and many sources have been added since I nominated.  Also if @ إيان : 's overview is accurate then I think there is an WP:IAR argument for keep......could إيان or anyone expand on that?  North8000 ( talk ) 14:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Almaany is cited as a source for translations by many dozens, if not hundreds, of scholarly works published by academic publishers in English and Arabic, as a simple Google Books search shows.  Seems odd to question its notability, and an assessment of such is worth more than a glance.  Carlstak ( talk ) 22:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] At this point it's obvious that the nomination for deletion is null and void.  The article has 9,461 bytes and 14 citations of scholarly sources, including Cambridge Scholars Publishing, John Wiley & Sons, and Routledge.  It should have been clear from the get-go that an article subject cited as a source by many scholarly publications would be likely to have reliable sources for its notability.  WP:NEXIST says: Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article.  Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any.  That clearly didn't happen.  One wonders if there is some bias operative here, unconscious or otherwise.  Carlstak ( talk ) 14:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What a ridiculous insulting interpretation.   You're complaining that the 50 overworked NPP'ers trying to handle 600 articles per day during their limited wiki-minutes didn't go find sources that none of the millions of editors didn't bother to find and put in the article?   And that even at AFD nobody has produced?   And the explanation for that is bias?  North8000 ( talk ) 15:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Mind your temper.  It's part of the guideline that you yourself cited.  A 30-second Google Books search would have sufficed to indicate the possibility that supporting sources might exist , just as the guideline says.  I don't see how it could be clearer than "before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any."  It's not about temper.   I was criticizing you doing "inventing bad faith" instead of AGF, especially when the AGF explanation is much more plausible.  North8000 ( talk ) 15:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Quite a stretch.  You've transmogrified "One wonders..." into a conspiracy theory.  Creative, though.  Carlstak ( talk ) 16:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see how there can be a conspiracy with only one person.  I've made my comment about some things that you wrote and stand by it.  I feel not need to take it any further.  Maybe what I said after that regarding the practicalities of who to expect to to put in references might be interesting.    All of that aside, I wish you the best and thank you for your work.  North8000 ( talk ) No problem, and thanks.  It was a joke, and I was laughing when I wrote it, meant to add a wink face.  I do all my editing while quite high. ;-) Carlstak ( talk ) 23:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Cool.   All is good.  North8000 ( talk ) 12:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd lay odds that I found two usable sources in less time than it took to make the nomination.  Carlstak ( talk ) 18:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as there is clearly an abundance of sources.  Mccapra ( talk ) 22:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep IMO, based on input above, this is based on a bit of Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works and within that  the extreme enclyclopedicness of the topic, or a bit of WP:IAR if one does not acknowledge that.   I still want this to be decided; This  is not a withdraw of the nomination.  North8000 ( talk ) 23:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep obviously.  "Extreme enclyclopedicness"?  That's a new one; whatever it's supposed to mean.  Gotta say that the "How Wikipedia notability works" essay is perhaps the most muddled and fuzzy essay I've ever read on WP, or anywhere, for that matter.  Carlstak ( talk ) 23:51, 25 December 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep