Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kus

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:07, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Kus
This appears to be a foreign Arabic dictionary definition. Either delete, or transwiki to the Arabic wikipedia, or transwiki to wiktionary. Sjakkalle 07:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) Just to make it clear, my primary vote on this one is delete since the English Wiktionary should in general be reserved for English words, and foreign words should have a very good reason for being there, as for example "quid pro quo". Transwiki to the Arabic version would require a translation to Arabic. Sjakkalle 11:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary.   &mdash; J I P | Talk 07:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's not even up to wiktionary standards. - Mustafaa 07:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, foreign dictionary definition. Megan1967 09:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, no transwiki. Tygar 10:19, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * No! Wiktionary's mandate is clear, and is right at the bottom of Main Page.  It is to include all words of all languages.  The English Wiktionary will happily accept Arabic words, as long as the definitions are written in English.  Being the English Wiktionary means that the articles are written in English and not that only the English language is covered.  The other requirement is that the article title be the word written in the actual script of the language concerned.  So the Wiktionary entry for this word would not be a romanization, as this article's title is.  Figuring out the correct title is too much of a burden on the already overtaxed Transwiki system, which is not necessary dealt with by people fluent in transliteration.  Delete and let Jelfar99, who obviously is fluent, write a dictionary definition in Wiktionary xemself, both for this word and for Zag.  Homaid is somewhat suspect, too. Uncle G 13:33, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
 * Alright, sorry, guess I should have read the Wiktionary policy better. Still I do not think that this particular word needs to be there, and yes I agree that moving this to Wiktionary would be a burden on the interwiki system. So I agree with you on just about everything and maintain my delete vote. Sjakkalle 13:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. No transwiki. Jayjg (talk) 19:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, while the content is somewhat accurate, this is a foreign dicdef, not an article. Wyss 01:24, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.