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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kush (word)

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was contested in a WP:PROD, but is clearly a dictionary definition of a persian word. Most of the definitions included in the article have their own articles, linked to in the disambiguation page. Should be deleted per WP:NAD and any useful content merged into the appropriate pages. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 00:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC) 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 00:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NAD. It's not simply a dictionary definition; it's a list of Persian, Urdu, and other words (and their definitions) containing the consonants ش and ک (/ʃ/ and /k/). That makes it less encyclopedic, not more so, in my opinion. I prodded it, as it had the ((disambiguation)) template but no ambiguous links. User:PamD removed the prod, noting that it was not actually a DAB page. Cnilep (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When Kush comes to shove, it falls afoul of NAD. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note There's a similar AfD for Hag (Persian), a similar article by the same user. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 02:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, per WP:NAD, and much of the content and sources fail WP:VERIFY. Also, I don't agree that most of the definitions have their own article. It appears to me that half the words and definitions are linked to a small number of the same articles. Additionally, Wikipedia is not a repository for a collections of indiscriminate information. This page probably needs to be written in prose, if that is possible; but that is only possible if this word was actually the subject of reliable sources. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2014 (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.