Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mujeer Du'a


 * 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. joe deckertalk 19:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Mujeer Du'a

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A non notable prayer. Millions of prayers are present in the narrations and this is just one of them, just like "GOD BLESS". It can be given a short space in some other article, but a stand alone article is not warranted, it fails notability by a huge margin. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Millions of Muslims around the world offer this prayer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musa Raza (talk • contribs) 07:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Same as hundreds of millions saying "God bless". That doesn't get "Gog bless" a stand alone article. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  07:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  07:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The Mujeer Du'a is notable prayer for Shia Muslims in Ramadan. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent and reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before nominating the article for deletion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search. The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable (NEXIST). Saff V. (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, so first of all you admit that in its present state the article does not cite any RS. Ty for that, good thing we got that cleared up. Secondly, as I have stated above, this is a non notable prayer, if you have any Reliable sources which discuss it in detail then present those sources. We all know there are no reliable sources mentioned in the article but they must be out there somewhere according to you, so why not present them. Just throwing around words without any sources to back them up is meaningless in a debate. you claim that Reliable sources discuss this in detail, fine, present them. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why the article sources are not reliable? I think that you have not sufficient information for evaluating sources of article.Saff V. (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all it has not been established that the topic is notable. That should be the major concern. You see the basic problem is that this is just a simple prayer like saying "God bless". and therefore it does not deserve an article all by itself. As far as sourcing is considered, why don't you pop over to WP:RS and have a look see. Then compare that to the sources given in this article, I am sure you will come to agree that the sources are not reliable and very shoddy. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. WP:GNG says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."  Prayer books (and website prayer books) are not independent of the subject.  This article could have been proposed for speedy deletion under WP:A7.  can you find significant coverage in independent reliable sources?  I am not even sure what significant coverage would look like.  I can see that the prayer might be mentioned in passing in sources - but that does not justify inclusion.  Wikipedia is not a dictionary of blessings and prayers.--  Toddy1 (talk) 08:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am rather worried about potential WP:BIAS here - we have articles on some prayers used by major Christian denominations and nobody seems to be bringing, say, Confiteor here, even though that article is largely sourced from Christian prayer books. To be honest, I think that the sourcing of Confiteor looks quite a bit better than the sourcing of this article - but I am not completely sure that I would take the same view if I had as little knowledge of Catholic rituals as I do of Shia ones. PWilkinson (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep meets GNG, comparable articles exist for other religions —Мандичка YO 😜 09:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And which article about a non notable prayer exists for "other" religions. You should be aware that simply saying "other articles " exist is not considered an argument here on AFD debates. Perhaps you can try to show how this prayer is "notable". Becasue without notability it is destined to be deleted. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.