Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadakiyans

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 delete‎. I see a rough consensus that sources are inadequate to establish notability, for now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadakiyans

[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)

I was not able to verify the existence of this dynasty - the four references used in the article are also difficult to verify. Semsûrî (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Semsûrî (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 4, p. 227: "In other towns, too, Arab chieftains came to build their castles and dominated the inhabitants ... in Urmiya Sadaqa b. 'Ali, a client of Azd". See also https://iranicaonline.org/articles/rawwadids. I cannot verify the article as a whole or confirm if this is a notable dynasty, but it does not appear to be a fabrication. Srnec (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing is weak, and does not sufficiently convey the idea of a "dynasty"; if the individuals involved are notable, they should have their own article, but their three-generation "dynasty" is almost certainly not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that there is so little knowledge about them is that they lived over 1,000 years ago and only ruled for around 50 years in a region wich was made up of villages, lots of mountains and a few small cities. Besides that, they seem to be the first Kurdish dynasty in History, so little information is to be expected. Karkafs Desiderium (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is why they are not notable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd love to hear more feedback from editors who are knowledgeable about this subject area.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two of the references are from journals which are the subject of articles in the English Wikipedia: Revue du monde musulman and Revue des études islamiques, and the third cites the first edition of Encyclopaedia of Islam. References do not have to be online to be valid, but editors with access to a university library might be able to access online or printed versions of the references. The fourth reference, perhaps added in error, was in a battle infobox that another editor removed. It was to the book The sword of Persia : Nader Shah, from tribal warrior to conquering tyrant, about Nader Shah, who was ruler of Persia much later, from 1736 to 1747. That fourth reference is no longer in the particle, but I think the three remaining references are good ones. I think the article is adequately referenced. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know what content is covered by the references and what is unsourced. The third and last reference is on the fifth line of the article. Semsûrî (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eastmain fyi, out-of-copyright French-language sources are often available on Gallica. Here is the page cited in the article. Revue des Études Arméniennes issues are available for download here. I'm not sure what makes either of these good references for the purposes of notability. -- asilvering (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No mention in modern scholarship. I was able to access one of the sources (from 1910): [1] And there, Sadaka ibn Ali is a passing mention, where we learn that he was a "client of the Azd tribe" and that he took Urmia and built a castle. Most of the content in the Wikipedia article is unreferenced, so I fail to see how this article can be considered adequately sourced. The article title itself is WP:OR as I failed to find any potential variations of it (let alone the form seen here). The source I linked above does not mention a dynasty, and I very much doubt the other two similarly-aged sources include anything close to that. The most inclusionist choice here would be creating Sadaka ibn Ali's bio, disregarding the small amount of available sources and content. Another inclusionist choice would be adding the sourced parts about Sadaka ibn Ali to a relevant article such as Azd. But in any case, "Sadakiyans" should not redirect anywhere as it doesn't appear to be a term precedented in the sources. Aintabli (talk) 09:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the claim this was a "dynasty" appears to be original research. The mention in al-Baladhuri is As for Urmiyah, 1 it was an ancient city in re- 331' gard to which the Magians (Ma jus} assert that their founder Zaradusht was from it. Sadakah ibn-'Ali ibn-Sadakah ibnDinar, the freedman of the Azd, made war against its inhabitants, finally entering and subduing it. He and his brothers built in it some castles. The Encyclopaedia of Islam citation appears to be referring to these three sentences. And while Sadaka ibn Ali's existence has clear attestations, the information about his descendants appears completely unsourced. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like the two above editors I can't find anything that verifies the information in this article, or even its title, beyond the bits about Sadaka ibn Ali. I've turned up enough Turkish-language sources to suggest that he is notable, but that's as far as I've got. -- asilvering (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2024 (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.