Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dakoha Sadaat

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 no consensus. This issue has gotten murkier instead of clearer during the time it has been listed at AFD. I suggest that discussion about what exactly is the subject of the article continue on the article talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dakoha Sadaat[edit]

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

An article that contains an unreferenced lineage back to Adam immediately arouses ones suspicions. Distinct shortage of reliable sources. Does it pass muster as a tribe article? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RHaworth,

I am assuming that you reside in a western nation, which is why you wouldn’t understand how lineage information is kept in eastern countries. Books have been written about the Sadaats. I am going to tell you the same thing, which I told you on your page. Let me know for which thing you need a reference and I’ll be more than happy to fulfill your wish. Just because something is not of interest to you, that doesn’t mean that it won’t be of interest to anyone else.

Thank You --70.19.112.239 (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC) — 70.19.112.239 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. This doesn't pass muster as a tribe. It is about a particular family. Tracing one's lineage back to Adam isn't a criteria for notability. If thats the case theoretically every individual can have an article.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sodabottle,

This article is not about their lineage; lineage is a part of the article not the main point of the article. So I would truly appreciate it, if your guys don’t delete this article based on linage issue. If you want, I can even refer to a book which contains their lineage. The article’s main idea is the history of the Sadaats and how they formed, why they formed, and how they claim themselves to be a part of a Sadaat. This information may not be important to you (like many other things), but it may be important for someone else that is interested in anthropology. --Salman A Shah (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC) — Salman A Shah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I am thinking about striking the Delete vote per work done on the article by Thor Dockweiler. Currently the article has been transformed into an article on a town. But it still looks like an article on a particular "family" and not a community/clan/tribe. If it is a town it is notable per our geographic location notability standards. But if it is about a group of people, i dont see how this meets our notability criteria. (Being useful for some people, is unfortunately not our notability threshold). So please work this out - is it an article about the town or the family?--Sodabottle (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This is an article about a community in India. It is a question of wording. The original author's extensive input in creating the article should be appreciated. The article has been revised at the beginning to correct notability problems. The author is encouraged to continue making the article about the community as a whole, including the notable part of the Sadaat portion within it as part of the history of that community. I trust that ethnic jabbing was not the original intent of the deletion proposer, but it is a possible interpretation. Deletions should be on items truly worthy of deletion; otherwise put a little effort in fixing articles. It would take less time than the wasted energy by many people making comments. Deletions especially to newer editors are perceived as callous and cause them to drop out on contributions to Wikipedia, both in articles and in potential monetary contributions. Wikipedia needs more conscious editors. Thank you "Salman A Shah" for making the world a little richer place in the realm of knowledge. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 06:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do we have any sources to verify the current lead sentence (which now identifies Dakoha Sadaat as the name of a town)? At present, Googling "Dakoha Sadaat" is turning up nothing in reliable sources to show that a town by this name exists. Of course, this doesn't mean that it definitely doesn't exist: the "Google test" could be inadequate here for several reasons. I know many non-Euro/American entities just lack English-language coverage online, and perhaps there's another way of transliterating the name into Roman characters that I should be searching for.

Alternatively, perhaps we're mischaracterizing the subject in English. Is the term "Dakoha Sadaat" better understood as "the Sadaat community/clan (originally) of the town of Dakoha"? The article's section on Partition seems to indicate that this is a better interpretation of the term, since it notes that the Sadaats left the Indian Punjab at Partition and eventually settled in Lahore, Pakistan. If that's the case, the lead sentence's claim that there is a town called Dakoha Sadaat in Jalandhar does not seem to be correct, and we're back to assessing the notability of a branch of the Sadaat family clan historically associated with, but not currently resident in, the Punjabi town of Dakoha. I can verify the existence of a town named Dakoha, but I am drawing a blank on reliable sources discussing an entity named Dakoha Sadaat. On those grounds I'm leaning delete, but I'm holding off on !voting to see if anyone has a response to these questions about the current lead formulation. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gonzonoir,

Dakoha Sadaat is not a name of a town; However, Dakoha is (it is located in Jalandhar). Dakoha Sadaat merely refers to the Sayeds that resided in Dakoha before the partition of 1947. There are many topics in this world, on which information on the internet can’t be searched, but that doesn’t mean that one can’t write the article about it. Distribution of knowledge has to start from somewhere. The information regarding Dakoha Sadaat can be found in many books, but they are written in Hindi, Urdu, Farsi, and Punjabi. This article on Wikipedia, is literally the first English article about the Dakoha Sadaat. --Salman A Shah (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the further information, Salman A Shah. In light of this, here's what I'd advocate for this article:

Keep the article, but rename/move it to the title Dakoha.
Refocus it as a general article about the town in Jalandhar (which I presume is automatically notable as a populated place).
Include in the new Dakoha article a "History of Dakoha" section in which the presence of the Sayed community in the town prior to Partition is discussed, with sources: non-English sources are perfectly acceptable, but we do need to have references provided so that the contents can be verified (by people who can read the languages concerned at least). Salman A Shah, are you able to supply these? If we can't find sources, I think the material should be excluded. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gonzonoir,

Thank you for your understanding and yes I can supply the sources/references.--Salman A Shah (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 16:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have made initial edits to refocus the article on the Jalandhar village in light of earlier discussion; feel free to revert me if you disagree. To work as a useful article about the settlement I believe the article would need significant expansion to cover other aspects of the village than the history of one of its communities. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2011 (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.