Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ziyarat locations


 * 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 keep. Just enough of a consensus to tip over the keep side. The Bushranger One ping only 08:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

List of ziyarat locations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A complete load of OR, SYNTH and POV. If I start a cleanup, we will be left with a small stub, not a list. Why did this pass the AFC anyway? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * @FreeatlastChitchat what makes you think this article was ever submitted to AFC? The empty move log proves that it was created directly in mainspace and not through AFC. I'll thank you not to diss one of the hardest working groups of editors on WP without evidence. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @Roger (Dodger67) My apologies, I may have been viewing histories of two articles simultaneously and was mistaken. So, again, my apologies, I did not mean any disrespect. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    04:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    04:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    04:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    05:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    05:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Are there no reliable sources which describe places as ziyarat locations? Siuenti (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Siuenti I think there are only 9-10 which are described as such, and even then the sources as contested as being RS. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Tip. A reasonably often used alternative spelling is ziarat. - HyperGaruda (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 03:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - a ziyaret is just a Muslim holy site that people visit. There are probably tens of thousands of them, maybe hundreds of thousands, many of them unofficial or local in nature. There is no source that lists them all, or even those in a single country. A tree with the local tradition that someone holy was buried under it and which has some votive rags tied to it could count as a ziyaret. So any "list" will be unworkable if accurate, OR and probably POV if selective.  Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep encyclopedic as much so as the contents of Category:Pilgrimage churches and Category:Pilgrim Centres and its contents. The article needs work, of course, but its encyclopedic worthiness is obvious. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * See also: List of Christian pilgrimage sites which is not nominated for deletion and covers essentially the same sort of material for different religion...Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are thinking that ziyarat is synonymous with a pilgrimage site, but that is not so. A ziyarat does not need any "notability"(lets use this word for the lack of a better) like a pilgrimage site does. For example a site is considered a pilgrimage site if something important happened there or someone important went/lived/died/is buried there. This is not the case with ziyarats. A simple tree outside a town in Pakistan/India/bangladesh/Africa will become a ziyarat site as soon as the first villager hangs a rag on it and says "Ooh loookey, this here tree is a good tree". So comparing the two is like comparing oranges with mangoes. Perhaps you can peruse Other stuff exists in your spare time. Ty. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not true, any item can be in Christian pilgrimage sites, as they are. All you need is someone to yell "I saw Mary" and suddenly the floodgates of pilgrims and money show up. Your citation to "Other stuff exists" is similarly inapt. If the article needs to be purged of what you call non-notable rags on trees, in your spare time purge it - and if you are worried about "other stuff" purge all the lists of pilgrimage sites to remove redlinks, non-notable places, etc. unless you're only targeting one set of beliefs. The proof is in your actions/inactions. Carlossuarez46 (talk)
 * "...the article needs to be purged of what you call non-notable rags on trees". You have just confirmed my delete point. Such "purging" would be OR and not nPOV. A tree with rags on it can be a ziyaret. (NB., I'm using the ziyaret spelling because that is the variant I know). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @Carlossuarez46 "I saw Mary" has christian connotation so you are basically agreeing with me here. A person can say that they saw Mary and the site will become a holy site due to its relation with Islam. However the same is not true with these so called ziyarat sites. People don't have to say "Oh this site is connected to Islam or religion so it is holy". they can just arbitrarily choose a site and then say that it is holy. therefore we cannot keep a record of all of them. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep When there are a lot of articles about List of ziyarat locations, why do you want to delete this article? -- Seyyed(t-c) 05:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not correct. The vast majority of locations listed in the article have no references and no supporting Wikipedia articles. The most important sites will have lots of articles/sources, but that will be as individual sites, not as a collective "List of ziyarats". Isn't there a requirement that to be included in a Wikipedia list article, there has to be either an individual suitable reference for the thing included or an associated Wikipedia article on it? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep There is similar article, List of Christian pilgrimage sites, that has not sufficient reliable sources. We must improve these lists and deleting is bad way.Saff V. (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not particularly similar. It has the word "notable", "pilgrimage sites" is something specific and not a thing with as loose a term as ziyaret, and about 95% of places in that list have Wikipedia articles that support their inclusion in the list. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * . There are similar AfDs going on, in particular Articles for deletion/List of Shia Muslims. My bottom line there is that these merely navigational lists indeed fail WP:GNG, but the extentsive use of such lists may require community-wide consensus (or at least clear guidelines) that said lists are undesirable. - HyperGaruda (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * List of ziyarat locations is not a usable navigational list since the vast majority of sites mentioned do not have Wikipedia articles, and many of the wikilinks that are in the list actually link to towns in which the ziyarats are located, or are about persons or organisations. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * List has been largely cleaned up now ( maybe I should've also removed the link-less entries with additional but unsourced information ). Apparently I'm not the first to do such a thing. This article used to be almost 70 kb until MezzoMezzo unleashed a deletion storm in August 2013 and left 9 kb worth of material. - HyperGaruda (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as long it is to linked valid referenced articles - the subject is valid, the list is valid, and however disparaging some of the comments in this afd might be, ziyarat or ziarah is a valid topic, and the list to valid articles is still good. It is clear that there have been massive additions, and massive deletions. It should be on the record, that where a valid ziarah/pilgrimage site exists, there is a well referenced article that identifies it as such, that there should be no impediment to having a list.  The problem with this list is low level english eds think its a great place to add their local site, which has no linked article.  Ziarah as a practice is something which excites the passions, and also fervour, and the life of this list seems to strangely reflect the two sides of pro and anti ziarah populations.  JarrahTree 23:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:V, as there are no reliable sources indicating that these are indeed ziyarat locations. There are no references in the list, and several entries chosen at random do not mention (let alone with sources) any ziyarat status. The comparisons with Christian pilgrimage sites are beside the point, because lists of these need sources just as much as this list, and should be nominated for deletion if they don't have any.  Sandstein   19:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep or incubate: Considering the list looking quite notable, it needs to be drafted as there are insufficient reliable sources. Otherwise, it could be kept by carrying out a major cleanup plus citing reliable sources. Vincent60030 (talk) 07:39, 4 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.