Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zahediyeh

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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zahediyeh

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article provides no verifiable sources. The only citation is to Geni.com, which is a user-generated, non-reliable genealogy website and does not meet Wikipedia’s reliable source criteria (WP:RS, WP:USERG). The content contains unverifiable genealogical claims and lacks independent, secondary sources. This topic does not meet notability guidelines for organizations or religious orders (WP:ORG, WP:N). Therefore, deletion is proposed under WP:A7 (no indication of significance) / WP:V (unsourced content). Khaatir (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Khaatir (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The subject Zahediyeh (the Sufi order of Sheikh Zahed Gilani) is historically notable and covered in reliable academic literature. However, this nomination concerns the current article's state, which lacks verifiable sources and does not meet WP:V or WP:RS. The deletion request is therefore based on the present content, not the notability of the broader topic. Khaatir (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Historical Dictionary of Iran provides a succinct overview of the significance of this group in the 14th century in the context of the Safavid dynasty. Google books appears to have more coverage in English (such as the Concise History of Islam and The Clergy and the Modern Middle East: Shi'i Political Activism in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon), but given the topic area, the best materials are likely in Arabic. Note that 21st century histories are citing this group as influential 700 years in the past so this is clearly a notable topic. Passes WP:GNG. Note that citing WP:ORG in this context seems ridiculous. That policy was written to address contemporary organizations, not medieval history. 4meter4 (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the Zahediyeh Sufi order (ṭarīqa) is historically notable and well-attested in reliable academic literature, including sources like the Historical Dictionary of Iran. My nomination concerns only the current article version, which does not cite any of those sources and relies solely on a user-generated genealogy website. My reference to WP:ORG was not to imply a contemporary organization, but simply to point out that the article, as written, does not demonstrate notability or verifiability per WP:V and WP:GNG. If the existing scholarly sources are properly added and the article rewritten accordingly, I would be happy to withdraw my deletion nomination. Khaatir (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not how notability evaluation works. See WP:NEXIST. The existence of sources is all that needs to be shown here at AFD.4meter4 (talk) 03:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and agree that notability is about the existence of reliable sources per WP:NEXIST. However, if an article (regardless of topic) contains no citations at all, or only a user-generated reference such as Geni.com, and no verifiable information, wouldn’t that still make it non-compliant with WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:USERG?

I’m just trying to understand — under which policy would such an unsourced page be considered keepable until those sources are actually incorporated? Khaatir (talk) 04:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The solution here is to add the sources and improve the article through editing. Also see WP:POINTY as to how this type of nomination could be perceived. Nominating clearly notable topics just because the article is a bad state could be viewed as disruptive.4meter4 (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: After reviewing the discussion and relevant policies, I realize my nomination was based on a misunderstanding. The topic itself is notable and reliable sources do exist. My concern was about the lack of citations in the current version — for which a {{Unreferenced}} or {{More citations needed}} tag would have been more appropriate than an AfD. I’m therefore withdrawing this nomination.
I also wish to thank the editors who participated in this discussion for their constructive input and patience. The exchange has been helpful and has given me a better understanding of how AfD and sourcing policies work. I appreciate the opportunity to learn from this experience. Khaatir (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have substantially rewritten the article to improve accuracy, neutrality, and sourcing. The previous unsourced material and user-generated references have been removed. The article now has a structured lead, verifiable citations, and qualifies as a Start-Class version. Given these improvements, the concerns raised in the nomination have been addressed. — Khaatir (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2025 (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.