Deletion of Mawla (2nd nomination)

Comment: Currently the article is strictly a  (or worse -- a partial dictionary entry in that it provides lexicographical information and usage without even including a straight definition). As Wikipedia specifically does not include articles that are dictionary definitions, this a problem regardless of how important the term is (there are lots of important ''terms'' that don't have Wikipedia articles. That said, if anyone wants to edit the article to be about a single ''concept'' rather than a word, I'd happily reconsider. Otherwise, a keep !vote misunderstands the purpose of Wikipedia vs. that of, say, Wiktionary. &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF)

Comment: Looks to be purely a . Not opposed to a redirect if there's an appropriate target. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF)

Comment: per , and as has been pointed out above, the article doesn't even provide a good definition of the word
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDICT)

Comment: I am not sure why we are even discussing this. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. To be frank this article is not even a dictionary entry as does not even define the term. In my opinion one of the shoddiest articles on wikipedia which should have been tagged with speedy deletion rather than AFD. There are millions of words used in the Hadith and the Quran, so are we going to include them all in wikipedia because they are "important in Islamic studies"? I am afraid not. The  is on the keep voters to show that this word has a unique definition within Islamic theology which has been given in depth coverage by multiple reliable sources. Otherwise, lets get rid of this mess please. Regards
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:BURDEN)