Holiest sites in Sufi Islam ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

• Hello, I find step No. 4 and 5 of 'Steps to list a new deletion review' confusing, some pl. do help me out in these 2 steps. Thanks.

I am not sure if this is right request page for the request I am making, pl do guide.

Basically request is for draftify with a changed name and re−purpose from nature of list to an encyclopedic article Draft:Sufi shrine to be built from scratch.

If it is to be built from scratch then why do I want deleted version for Draft? a) for retaining history as mark of respect to the previous contributors b) but major reason is I can seek help of previous contributors in building new article if they are active. Frankly speaking even availability of list of active contributors from the deleted history too will do for me.

Let me transparently mention that I do have my personal reservations against superstitions but I am reasonable in respecting freedom of conscience. Logically may be there is scope for re–examining 'list' part of aspect but my personal reservations are not much in favor of 'lists' though I have indulged in list editing few times, and previously I have not read or edited the list article under discussion. Thanks.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 05:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC) reply

How would a change of name address the issue of the subject being non-notable / original synthesis? — Alalch Emis ( talk) 11:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC) reply

And why O.R.? I do have reasonable experience of writing with proper refs, you can have good faith in me. Any way I can write one in drafts just like that but wish to take help from any active user from deleted article history who might know some nuances of the topic shall be helpful so I think Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 12:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC) reply

I understand. Subject however isn't "Sufi shrine" but "Holiest sites in Sufi Islam". I didn't say OR, but WP:SYNTH. The delete side argued that there is an original synthesis concern -- (1) I don’t see any evidence that this is even a topic, (2) this one really doesn't fit in the mold, simply because there are so many different Sufi sects, and because these would never agree on a specific set of sites as 'the' holiest. Consensus to delete basically formed around the subject being an original synthesis. How would a reformulated subject make it not be an original synthesis anymore? — Alalch Emis ( talk) 12:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• The topic Sufi shrine (as opposed to Holiest sites in Sufi Islam) certainly is notable, and we should have an article on it. However, as far as I recall, the deleted article contained nothing at all that would be helpful in writing such an article, which indeed would need to be rewritten from scratch. This primarily means that it should be based on new, reliable and secondary sources that the deleted article did not (again, as far as I recall) give. Also note that we have very closely related articles in Mazar (mausoleum) (the great majority of these are Sufi shrines) and Ziyarat (the practice of visiting a mazar/shrine, again in the great majority of cases Sufi shrines). All in all, it would be much better to look for a few good sources on Sufi shrines and write a one-paragraph stub called Sufi shrine based on that, than to resurrect a non-notable list of supposedly 'holiest' shrines. ☿  Apaugasma ( talk  ☉) 14:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Good close. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 15:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Yes, the close was right, but yes, we should grant the request--or really, acknowledge that any administrator can do what's requested without any input from us--to restore the text to draft so that a refocused article can be written using text as appropriate from the deleted article. Jclemens ( talk) 16:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Obviously I support my own close, but any administrator is free to draftify if they wish (and render this DRV moot). Apologies for not getting back to the nominator as promptly as I normally would, I am travelling currently so less available than normal. Daniel ( talk) 21:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the AfD. This should have been a WP:REFUND request for userfication or draftification. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Draftify as requested: while it should have been done at WP:REFUND (or simply by waiting for a response from the deleting admin), there's no need to play pin-the-tail-on-the-noticeboard, per WP:NOTBURO etc. As a sidenote, I don't see the closure as being as unassailable as it might seem: the nominator was a blocked sock, while one of the delete !votes was a discountable WP:JNN (and probably a sock as well, but that's another story). That would leave us with two deletes and one keep, which is arguably in the no-consensus range (or at least worthy of a relist). I won't jump to any conclusions since the close isn't really being challenged here directly, but future editors should be particularly lenient with regards to (e.g.) WP:G4. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 03:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Just for the record: the nominator of the AfD was found out to be a sock 10 days after the closure, so due diligence was met. Also, there's no reason why a subject whose notability was challenged two to one shouldn't go through AfC next time. I'm confident that 'holiest' as a WP:LISTCRIT (which should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources) won't cut it there. But yes, if the nominator doesn't find what they were looking for in Mazar (mausoleum) and Ziyarat (as I actually suspect they will; they might still withdraw this nomination), draftify and rename to Draft:Sufi shrine or similar. ☿  Apaugasma ( talk  ☉) 13:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Again User:Apaugasma indirectly provided outline for article Sufi shrine, ..what a Sufi shrine is, how and when they originated, what their function is, what role they play in contemporary Islam,.. I am not sure and clear how one would accommodate Sufi specific information in generalized articles Mazar (mausoleum) & Ziyarat. And if any editor decides to push in extra Sufi specific info in generalised articles would risk other editors not allowing on count of not relevant or due enough.

Call can be taken later about whether a draft is worth an independent article or still need to be merged in some other article. I do think that way as of now.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 14:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• I came across article Dargah which seem to be capable of taking care of Sufi shrine reasonably. I am contemplating to redirect Sufi shrine to Dargah with a hat note to that effect. So as of now I wish to take back nomination my side and if any difficulty arises in redirecting then I will seek advice from admins. Thanks.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 03:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Intimated of this discussion to 3 still active users who had contributed to article Dargah (namely User:Batreeq, User:Ekabhishek & User:Wiki31295, if in case they have any view on redirect Sufi shrine → Dargah and this discussion. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 03:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the closure based on strength of arguments, and noting that even when the nominator is thrown away, the Deletes still outnumbered the Keeps. If this is a request to draftify the deleted article, then we should draftify the deleted article. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Allow restoration as a draft A reasonable request. Hobit ( talk) 15:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and request for draftify seems reasonable. -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 06:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply