Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banu (arabic)


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Banu (arabic)
Originally PRODed by Crzrussian (reason was 'UE and dicdef?') and endorsed by Yanksox. I've deleted it, but the creator (Striver) has requested for it to be restored. I have restored it, but still think it should be deleted. King of ♥   ♦   ♣   ♠  15:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this is just a translation of an Arabic word. If it's important enough, put it in Wiktionary, otherwise delete it. — Mets 501  (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup - the article has been significantly improved. — Mets 501 (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Ill try to improve it. --Striver 17:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It needs work, but is already quite informative. Park3r 19:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, dicdef, Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. If this gets cleaned up and made into more than just a dicdef, I'll change my mind. --Coredesat talk 21:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Content is appropriate for a translation guide (more than just a dictionary definition), but not for an enyclopedia. GRBerry 02:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * GRBerry, why is that not encyclopedic for a non-paper encyclopedia?--Striver 18:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it is still dictionary content, not encyclopedia content. What Wikipedia is not has a lead sentence of "Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a usage or jargon guide."  This is elaborated upon at Wikipedia is not a dictionary, where the lead sentence is "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., should be used.".  So far, this article has a dictionary definition introduction, a "Grammar" section and a "Uses" section ...  this is nothing more than saying how the word is used.  What is ok is the type of usage discussion at Freedom (philosophy) where it is explaining usage in many notable contexts, each of which has its own article.   Wiktionary is the appropriate place, there the goal is to "produce a free, multilingual dictionary with definitions, etymologies, pronunciations, sample quotations, synonyms, antonyms and translations." [Emphasis added.] GRBerry 19:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, so what you are proposing is not acutaly a "delete", rather a "transwiki"? --Striver 22:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, WP:WINAD. Sandstein 07:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral', right now I see it as a dict def... but, I think it can be expanded to bring in cultural context making it encyclopedic. gren グレン 05:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.