Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inshallah

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. Kurykh (talk) 03:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inshallah

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

Minus some unsourced content about the use of the phrase in Islam and Christianity (yes, really) which I have removed, there's not really anything here that does not belong in a dictionary - see WP:NOTDICT. Of course, if there is sourced material about the cultural, religious, etc. importance of the phrase, I'll withdraw the AfD. I assume there has to be some, but I wouldn't know where to begin looking, and I don't read Arabic. Sandstein 16:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per other articles like As-salamu alaykum. These are significant religious phrases. The article on inshallah needs some expansion though. Khestwol (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article might need a bit of improving but this is a pretty significant phrase. Don't think it warrants deletion. Adamtt9 (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve/expand DarjeelingTea (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've expanded it a bit. The phrase is in fact used by Christians, the removed OR notwithstanding. Eperoton (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that there is plenty of cultural and religious importance to the phrase that it is suitable for an article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a clearly significant topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's just a trite phrase it means the same as 'god willing' and we haven't got an article for that either, nor do we need one, and the article has literally zero actually encyclopedic content. The article has failed to go beyond simply defining a phrase and noting that similar phrases exist in other languages and so must be deleted.GliderMaven (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the, from the looks of it, unlikely case that the page will not be kept, a redirect to Glossary of Islam is probably preferable to outright deletion. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glossaries are encyclopedic, and this isn't. Deletion followed by installing a redirect seems to be perfectly reasonable, otherwise we'll probably get reverts against the result of the AFD. There's nothing I could find to suggest this could ever be a reasonable article.GliderMaven (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:WORDISSUBJECT. The phrase qua phrase is notable, and there are currently at least minimal sources for every section. Clean-up appears to be on-going, but the issues seem eminently surmountable. Cnilep (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this expression is often used, should be kept. sami ^talk 13:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per all user comments.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:00, 22 February 2017 (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.