Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajam

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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ajam

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

Enormous DictDef; probably valuable for en: Wiktionary, which has no pages for ajam or ajami, so Transwiki to Wikt & delete from WP. Jerzy•t 20:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as a dictionary definition. -- Whpq (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - on reconsideration, there is a topic here although the article could be use a helthy cleanup. -- Whpq (talk) 10:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is an encyclopedic entry [1] in Eir (Iranica) and EI Encyclopedia of Islam. --Pahlavannariman (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: An enormous WP:DICDEF indeed... with derivation, historical overview of usage, references to a number of reliable secondary sources as well as to primary sources, and notes on usage outside the main definition, even as it changed over time. Would have to be trimmed of most of these to be included in a dictionary, as in its current form it would be more appropriate as an encyclopaedia article.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:37, 29 April 2010 (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.