Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Believe in Science


 * 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 no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 09:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I Believe in Science

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Drewmutt and I think this is spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete What RHaworth said. If you were to remove all the lavish praise about the subject, there'd be no article left. I don't read Arabic, but it's worth noting that interviews don't constitute independent coverage of the subject. Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ ) talk  19:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the interviews are not independent coverage and create no weight in favor of notability. There was discussion in the Arabic AfD about potentially removing those quotes.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Does not pass WP:GNG. Looks like pure spam. Skirts89 (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article is not spam (though there is a promotional tone I think needs to be edited out), though I have no issue with an AFD to test notability.  I approved this article out of AfC after discussion with the article's creator, Abdullah Arfa.  This discussion was preserved at Talk:I Believe in Science, and ideally can be restored during this AfD, if RHaworth would oblige.  The references which pushed me into taking the article out of AfC purgatory included the Arabic language articles in legitimate newspapers El Watan and Asharq Al-Awsat, and my review of the Arabic wikipedia AfD discusssion at ar:ويكيبيديا:نقاش الحذف/أنا أصدق العلم, where the article was kept.--Milowent • hasspoken  13:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry. Talk now restored. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: I'm not very sure what's the problem of the article. If notability, then I disagree. The project is mentioned in many major Arabic newspapers in Egypt and Lebanon and registered legally in Lebanon and it has millions of followers on social media (the largest in the Arab world). If the problem is praising the project which isn't compatible with Wikipedia, I'd love to know what exactly to edit it or you can edit it to be compatible with Wikipedia policies. --Abdullah Arfa (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

*Keep per last to comments above. Perf115 (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC) strike sock vote --  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Notability has been shown on AR Wiki and the promo stuff is ultimately just a page-quality issue. FOARP (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Provisional keep, providing that there is no credible challenge to the reliability or depth-of-coverage of the Arabic sources. All the rest falls under deletion is not cleanup, and it can be cleaned up if there are good sources. SpinningSpark 19:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete While I have no knowledge of Arabic (I’m trying though) I don’t see sustained coverage from reliable sources. Trillfendi (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete searching in Google about this website yield results that are mostly from their website or from Facebook pages which both are not reliable. in addition, there's many unrelated results and the coverage in English is not enough as the quotations attributed to Robert Weinberg and Lawrence Krauss are relying on YouTube videos which is also not reliable and may have much different interpretations .--مصعب (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:WEBCRIT, with coverage in four independent, reliable, non-trivial published already included as references in the article. (I have replaced one source with the same article in the English-language version of the website. There is no problem with non-English language sources, but when an English one is available, it seems sensible to use it.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability documented, if not in English.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably, "Keep", but there's sort of COI, per user edit summaries = A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject -- Alaa  )..! 14:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficient evidence of importance, despite the coi.  DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep There are a couple of references from the Arabic WP that still haven't been used. Many are clustered around a few events/times so picking the best from those clusters can help support the English version. StrayBolt (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.