Talk:لا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله

لا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله
It's a phrase, sure, but I'm not exactly sure why it would be dictionary-worthy. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 07:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it looks like a set phrase. Is it? Using it might a speech act, like use of virtually any other proverbial expression.
 * AFAICT, the biggest reason we exclude religious set phrases is that there is a bias here against religion, though it could be a lack of the courage to face religious controversy. DCDuring TALK 13:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 14:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * On what part of WT:CFI? DCDuring TALK 15:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong opinion on this but it doesn't seem to fit any part. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 15:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a phrase and a sentence. See Category:English phrases and Category:English sentences. DCDuring TALK 16:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. CFI permits idiomatic phrases (including sentences), but I'm not seeing evidence that this is idiomatic, nor do I see anything in CFI that even defines what a "set phrase" is, let alone anything that permits them when they aren't idiomatic. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Angr. - -sche (discuss) 00:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Would feel the same about most full sentences from the Bible, etc. Equinox ◑ 00:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 18:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I missed this thread until I saw the deletion notice pop up on my watchlist, but I think it is dictionary-worthy in the same vein as and . (see Hawqala) Aperiarcam (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, there is a clear consensus to delete, and it would take quite a substantial showing of opposition to deletion to reverse that at this point. bd2412 T 19:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * is entirely different, since it is actually used in discourse. was kept as no consensus, so it cannot be used as an argument. --WikiTiki89 19:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I concede that doesn't have conversational currency to the extent that  does, but it certainly does have a range of idiomatic conversational meanings (see this work by Moshe Piamenta). My original rationale for including the phrase was that it was lemmatical enough to have its own special verb . The phrase is listed in Wehr under . Aperiarcam (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok I read your link and understand what you're talking about now. Note that this deletion discussion only applies to the sense that was in the entry: "(Islam) There is no power or strength but in God". You can re-create the entry with a new sense summarizing the paragraphs in your link beginning with "One exclaims the ḥawqala when " and add some citations for it. If you don't add citations, I will probably nominate it for WT:RFV. You can also create the short forms, , and , and the alternative form , also preferably with citations. Also note that the existence of a name for the phrase is completely irrelevant to its idiomacity. --WikiTiki89 19:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)