Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inna Lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inna Lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Exactly what a dictionary definition is, exactly what Wikipedia is not, see WP:NOTDICT. My prod was deleted by a guest user. SJD Willoughby (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I bring up Wikihow and Quaran websites, none of which are helpful, as sourcing in my search. I don't see why we need this, the sourcing now used basically just confirms it exists where it says it does. Oaktree b (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDICT, WP:DUE. Partofthemachine (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Prof.PMarini (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is true the article in it's current form is more of a dictionary entry but when deciding to delete something or not the current state of the article is not that important, the significance of the topic is. I believe that because this phrase has cultural/religious significance that can be seen in its wide usage when someone dies in middle eastern cultures it is significant in the same way the article "Raining cats and dogs" is. Therefore I believe it should be kept on that basis as it is a common expression and other common expressions also have articles. EvilxFish (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and a lot of Wikipedia articles are kind of like dictionaries anyway since they have a title and give the definition, such as the article on cats. They're just much more detailed. Like you said, this saying also has such cultural and religious significance that it deserves its own article. This saying is referred as the "Istirja", so maybe that could be the article's title instead. I think that'd be better but I say keep it! BlueOtaku8000 (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a second, unbolded Keep comment so I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think this phrase, along with other ones such as the basmala, tasbih, etc, should just be thrown on Wiktionary. There's a table on the Dhikr page with commonly used phrases, so we could just swap out those links for the Wiktionary links. AmrAlWatan^{(🗣️|📝)} 02:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per EvilxFish's argument. Abo Yemen ✉ 09:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per EvilxFish. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (vote changed Sept 8 2024). If the above editors voting Keep want to write a detailed article and submit it for AfC or NPP review they should. Currently it is just a dictionary entry, and that is both inappropriate and not notable.Ldm1954 (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of notability is not decided by the current state of the article, rather the inherent notability of the topic itself. Meaning that whereas I do agree that the current state of the article is dire, this does not affect notability or worthiness of inclusion into the encyclopedia. I personally would struggle to edit this article as I believe a lot of the information for this topic would be found in languages I cannot read or speak but I do not feel it unreasonable to believe such literature exists, based on what I have searched and seen online about this phrases usage. Assuming the comment by @BlueOtaku8000 earlier is correct, I would support renaming it to a more concise title though as a separate issue. EvilxFish (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ldm1954, Soft Deletion is not possible if there are arguments to Keep an article. Soft Deletes are like PRODs they are for uncontroversial deletions. If there are editors arguing for a Keep outcome, then the deletion is clearly not uncontroversial. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I don't (yet) know all details as well as I probably should. I will remove the Soft in my vote. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect The phrase undeniably holds cultural significance, notable being more than a mere expression, as emphasised by EvilxFish. As a balance between the two views, it could be merged and redirected to Al-Baqara. samee converse 09:49, 7 September 2024 (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.