Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dogar (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 keep. The consensus after discussion and better sourcing seems to be to keep.  DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Dogar
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Last AfD closed as no consensus only because it failed to attract any comments - hopefully we can get it resolved this time. Boleyn (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. No sources whatsoever, and no indication of notability. Brianga (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Convert to a surname article and keep as there are to meet the criteria of WP:APONOTE. Uanfala (talk) 07:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sitush's findings. – Uanfala (talk) 10:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Personally I would move Dogar (disambiguation) to the main page, which now contains those. Boleyn (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the brevity of the list, this isn't a bad idea in itself. However, we normally keep surname lists and dab pages separate per WP:NAMELIST and, in view of the association that normally exists between a surname and the name of a community, verifiable information about the community (notable or not) is relevant in the surname article. Uanfala (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: Arguing to keep an article, that has zero references, and tagged since 2014, with "notable or not" because it has some unclear association between a surname and the name of a community, is insane. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, genealogy portal, publisher of original thought (such as "defining terms"), or indiscriminate collection of information. The article fails WP:NOTABILITY, even WP:GNG, as well as WP:VERIFIABILITY. These are reasons we don't "keep" articles regardless of some remote connection to something else. Otr500 (talk)
 * Note: There is the article, Dagar that shows this as an alternate name, along with "Dangar" and "Digrana". That article actually only has one reference that states, "the Panchal Luhar have small exogamous divisions (got), such as Dagar ...". Even with that there just is not enough verifiable information (notability) to keep the article. Otr500 (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment see
 * They're nothing much in detail but these alone are sufficient to form a referenced stub: Muslim, pastoralists, lost out in the pecking order with the rise of other clans, clan endogamy, disparaged in an well-known Punjabi story, etc. - Sitush (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * They're nothing much in detail but these alone are sufficient to form a referenced stub: Muslim, pastoralists, lost out in the pecking order with the rise of other clans, clan endogamy, disparaged in an well-known Punjabi story, etc. - Sitush (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * They're nothing much in detail but these alone are sufficient to form a referenced stub: Muslim, pastoralists, lost out in the pecking order with the rise of other clans, clan endogamy, disparaged in an well-known Punjabi story, etc. - Sitush (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * They're nothing much in detail but these alone are sufficient to form a referenced stub: Muslim, pastoralists, lost out in the pecking order with the rise of other clans, clan endogamy, disparaged in an well-known Punjabi story, etc. - Sitush (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * They're nothing much in detail but these alone are sufficient to form a referenced stub: Muslim, pastoralists, lost out in the pecking order with the rise of other clans, clan endogamy, disparaged in an well-known Punjabi story, etc. - Sitush (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * They're nothing much in detail but these alone are sufficient to form a referenced stub: Muslim, pastoralists, lost out in the pecking order with the rise of other clans, clan endogamy, disparaged in an well-known Punjabi story, etc. - Sitush (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep this is an easy keep. I am rewriting the article with sources. - Sitush (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments: Since this is the chosen article to keep we can merge as uncontested the alternates Dugar, Dagur clan, and Dagar. Otr500 (talk) 10:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. There are plenty of castes/clans that share the same or similar names but which are distinct communities. Some of that is because of the gotra system, naming after rishis etc, meaning that one clan name is used by multiple castes. - Sitush (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is a novel idea: When a name, especially one with alternate spellings, is used across multiple platforms, in this case communities, areas, castes, or whatever, and has separate articles, this can be solved by using sections in one article. This prevents a lot of stubby-stub articles, that are just variations in spelling, resulting in a better singular article. This is especially important when several articles show the same alternate spellings, that can not be argued as not being confusing, and a solution. I have been informed that there is no improvements that can be made but someone would have to logically explain why this would not be a workable solution. Otr500 (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It isn't a novel idea. It does occasionally happen, particularly for clans of the Jats and Rajputs, but in most cases the things are so distinct that they rightly deserve their own article. - Sitush (talk) 09:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That was a bit a sarcasm and I totally agree that if "something is so distinct" it should have a separate article. However, this is impossible to assert when an article has zero references, is a one line less than stubby-stub, and is no more than a dictionary type entry, or what appears to me a push to move Wikipedia into the genealogy business. Something "distinct" is considered WP:NOTABLE by reliable independent sources, and not just having a place on Wikipedia. If there is not enough coverage merge and cover the different aspects in sections of a single article. That just makes too much sense to me. Otr500 (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We can't merge something that is unverifiable. - Sitush (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ahhh! and now we make progress. We can not do anything with subjects or material that is not verifiable. "IF" a subject or content is not verifiable it has absolutely no place on Wikipedia. Dab pages do not need citations because the target article is subjected to policies and guidelines. Otr500 (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you can't dab something that isn't verifiable either. You are not going to "win" this one (you do seem to be treating it as a sort of battle), so I suggest you change your !vote here given the sourcing now in the article and that you move on per the note recently left for you by someone else on my talk page. - Sitush (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per the sources found by Sitush. Vanamonde (talk) 05:23, 17 October 2016 (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.