Talk:للبن

RFD discussion: November 2017–January 2018
Not one word but three words -  + definite form of :  with a enclitic definite article  together looking like one word. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Straightforward SOP; I have no clue why Stephen created it, but it may be that in 2007, most anything was acceptable. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete throwing also لله into the bin. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 04:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * للبن is RFD failed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

لله
Per P.v., this ought to go for the same reason. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This isn't the same thing. للبن is plus . However, لله cannot be split or further reduced. You cannot remove the first  or any other part of لله. You can't even add vowels or other diacritics. You can only add prefixes, such as, as in: الله. —Stephen (Talk) 09:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is a ligature, which we should keep. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * But as we already know, such happens with every combination of the preposition and the definite article. We can “split” those products, لله gives  and . It is already arguable to delete  because it is SOP (I don’t clearly see why it is not SOP). Creating  goes too far. Also Stephen contradicts himself by stating that the Allah combination cannot be split up while  can be, as this one also omits the article completely and he has glossed it “li-l-labani” while here he analyzes it as “ plus ”. If  shall not be deleted because “it’s a ligature” or “it cannot be split or further reduced”, one can go on and auto-create entries with the preposition  for  and all names containing the definite article (someone might start to create family name entries somewhen),, . Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 21:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * “lillāhi” is different from “li-l-labani” because it appears even shorter than the lemma despite it having a preposition and there is no indefinite form, so the article can’t be dropped. My argument is not strong, I admit but we should be helpful to users. A kind of soft redirect would be good, and I don’t suggest to keep other prepositional collocations. I’ll let the community decide. —Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Palaestrator verborum, what you wrote makes me question your age. I honestly think you're a child. In any case, I'm not wasting more time with this nonsense. —Stephen (Talk) 05:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * لله is RFD kept, although redirecting in the future is not off the table. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)