- 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 merge to Resh#Arabic rāʾ. MBisanz talk 03:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ݛ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No source can be found to verify that this symbol has been adopted by any official agency as the symbol of the Pakistani rupee. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Resh#Arabic rāʾ (compare Waw (letter)#Arabic wāw) or to Arabic script in Unicode, where many uncommon modified Arabic letters redirect: All glyphs should redirect somewhere, or, if there is enough unique information about them, have their own page, compare Rā with two dots vertically above. The unconfirmed comment that this is used as a symbol of the Pakistani Rupee is not essential to the subject and can be removed. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 17:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Based on information given by Unicode [1] (see page 265) & [2] (the letter in question is 075B) it would seem that this is a glyph use to transcribe a North- or West-African language. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 17:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But apparently not Hausa. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 18:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nor in Fulfulde.
- Nor in Wolof הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 18:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 18:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to Resh per Hasirpad. Other possible targets, such as Arabic alphabet or List of Unicode characters, don't describe individual characters in detail. Cnilep (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A merger seems sensible here. Bearian (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2013 (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.