Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qamosona


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 15:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Qamosona

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Rejected PROD. The article gives no indication that the subject meets the notability guidelines at WP:WEB, nor did the PROD remover do anything to address that issue. The only "resource" listed is an article in the Pashto Wikipedia, which of course is not a reliable source. —Angr (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. The PROD remover is an older IP user, and different from the author. Varlaam (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The resource you mention is ps:قاموسونه which is just Qamosona written out in Pushtu.
 * That article in turn links to this page, ps:احمد ولي اڅکزی, which is the bare bones page about Ahmad Wali Achakzai, the Afghan student mentioned in the article.
 * It's not very substantial over there either.
 * Varlaam (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * But, I should add, that as someone who taught himself to read this script in 1991, I personally don't mind being informed of a free on-line Pushtu dictionary.
 * However, a paragraph on the Pashto page would suffice in that regard. Varlaam (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Or even just a link in the External links section. —Angr (talk) 07:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I own Arabic and Persian dictionaries in hardcover. I'm not sure I've ever seen a Pushtu dictionary. (Pushtu is what my linguistics prof called it 30 years ago, rather than Pashto.)
 * From what they seem to be describing, it sounds like a significant undertaking, and therefore perhaps warranting more than just a link.
 * But at this point, I have no feel for whatever specific precedents there may be which are relevant in this precise context, either regarding online dictionaries, or new websites.
 * Neither has been a focus of mine here at WP, which is why I am commenting, rather than stating some opinion.
 * Varlaam (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * 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.