Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dagar (2nd nomination)

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. Kurykh (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC) revert to disambiguation page. Kurykh (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dagar[edit]

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

It has been asserted that this article is identical to the deleted Dagur clan and thus should be speedied; for clarity and to avoid future problems can we please discuss this article at AfD. If all the same arguments apply as to Dagur clan, bring them on. I'd just like to see this clarified. If the article gets deleted, then we can move the dab page back to this title, but please don't confuse matters by doing so during the AfD discussion: let's keep things simple and clear. PamD 12:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to disambiguation page, i.e. revert to this revision. WP:DISCUSSAFD states that "Alternatives to deletion should be considered. If you think the article should be a disambiguation page, a redirect or merger to another article, then recommend "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge". Do not recommend deletion in such cases." The Dagar clearly meets disambiguation criteria, as can be seen in this revision of it. As there's no primary topic here – which is clarified by the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dagur clan – there's no need to add the tag "(disambiguation)", as per WP:DABNAME. And, according to WP:DABNAME, Dagar (disambiguation) should be redirected to Dagar. In short, the revision shown by me is a valid page in itself. Please also see Talk:Dagar & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dagar to understand the issue here.

PS: The nom created Dagar (disambiguation) by copy-pasting a revision of Dagar. - NitinMlk (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Convert to disambiguation page" is not an appropriate suggestion. "Delete this page about the clan, agree that there is no Primary Topic for "Dagar", and move the existing disambiguation page to occcupy the title "Dagar" " is probably the outcome of this AfD which most people would support. The existing article about the clan, the subject of this AfD, has existed all or most of the time since 2009. This AfD gives an opportunity for editors to agree once and for all that this article should not exist. Just follow the process and we will end up with a decision which is clearly recorded and can be used to suppress any future attempt to recreate the article. PamD 17:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I did not copy-paste, but reverted to an earlier version: quite different kinds of edits, as the first loses the attribution to previous editors, while the second does not. PamD 17:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC) Ah yes, I didn't copy-paste in recent history, but copy-pasted with attribution to create the dab page during an earlier episode of this spat. PamD 17:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an inappropriate suggestion, but the relevant wiki policy. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dagur clan has already cleared the way for suppression of any future attempt to recreate the clan article. But repetitive edit-warring by you & Primefac at Dagar can't be a reason to delete it. It's a perfectly valid dab page. And please revisit the closing comments of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dagar.

PS: You created Dagar (disambiguation) by copy-pasting an older revision of Dagar. {{Template:Copied}} states that "the former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. So, there are attribution issues as well, but that isn't even the issue at hand, as Dagar is a valid dab page & shouldn't be deleted, per WP:DISCUSSAFD/WP:ATD. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion as a recreation of Dagur clan, conform Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dagur clan. The Banner talk 13:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Dagar was created in 2009 & it isn't a recreation of any recently deleted article. The recent revision of it is done by the nom, without developing consensus at Talk:Dagar. They didn't even give heed to the closing comments of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dagar. - NitinMlk (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NitinMlk, I am genuinely confused about your goals in this. You want this page deleted and converted into a DAB. Why are you fighting so damn hard to keep the page from being deleted, while simultaneously advocating for it to be deleted? Primefac (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never wanted to get this page deleted. Please see the wiki policy, which is cited by me above. In fact, a page must not be deleted when there is a valid WP:ATD. - NitinMlk (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please will someone with knowledge of the subject area just produce the arguments as to why this article should be deleted. I gather from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dagur clan that Dagar is considered to be an equivalent article, although "Dagur" is not mentioned in the Dagar article. Just produce the policy-compliant arguments, rather than discussing the complex history of the page and the dab page. I am not an expert on South Asian clans: I care about disambiguation pages and like to see things done tidily and clearly. In view of all the messing around over the years, I think the encyclopedia would benefit from having a clear decision on whether the article Dagar about the clan (distinct from the dab page) should or should not exist. That's what the AfD is for. If the page is deleted it will then be logical to move the dab page to the vacated title. PamD 17:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDIA has been notified. Primefac (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Primefac: You're right, I guess, this has been around for longer than Dagur clan. Since it is a word-for-word copy, though, I don't much see the point in this discussion. Indeed, I don't particularly want to get into Wikilawyering here, but I cannot imagine that G4 or A10 does not apply to an article that is a complete copy of another. Vanamonde (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points. I think at this point, based on the amount of back-and-forth between the above parties (myself included) the only option for us is to see this through; Talk Page Diplomacy seems to have royally failed. A definitive answer is needed to satisfy those crying for blood. Primefac (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ - I've been doing some digging, and apparently an entire branch of dhrupad is named after the Dagar. This may make them notable enough to keep. Primefac (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is getting embarrassing. First you vandalized the dab page by converting it to clan article. And now you want to get the dab page deleted. As I have already told you many times before, only way to convert the above dab page into a clan article is by clearly developing consensus on Talk:Dagar that the Dagar clan is not only notable but also the primary topic here. Till then Dagar should be a dab page, as per WP:DABNAME. BTW, you are free to create the clan article under a title like Dagar clan, as your weak keep in itself suggests that it isn't the primary topic here. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only for yourself. I'm pretty sure this page was an article about Dagar before it was a dab (oh wait, it was). Primefac (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already explained, Dagar is an ambiguous title & clan was wrongly placed under it. But normal editing has rectified that – please revisit WP:ATD & the last AfD. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Primefac: The Dagar gharana of musicians has nothing in common with the Dagar Jat clan (the social group) except the name. The two are completely different topics. utcursch | talk 21:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

!vote stricken per the previous comment. Primefac (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete in case that was not clear before. There is no evidence of notability, and not enough to even be certain that this isn't caste cruft of the sort that frequently plagues the area. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 12:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to dab I have no opinion on the notability, but if the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dagur clan has established the clan is not notable, then I don't see the point of re-arguing this for the identically-worded copies of the text at each spelling variant (noting that participants in the AfD were aware of the Dagar spelling). Dagar was converted to a disambiguation page at one point and it's best to revert to this revision (Dagar (disambiguation) is a copy of that version, so moving that over the primary title would break attribution). – Uanfala (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G4. The two articles are identical. No AfD discussion required. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2017 (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.