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 to delete. Whatever we decide to do about Dagar, it won't involve using the "delete" button. We might well end up converting it to a redirect; further discussion about that belongs on Talk:Dagar.—S MarshallT/C 17:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The page belongs to Category:Jat clans, or one of its subcategories. All the pages of these categories lack the very basic notability guidelines. Failure WP:GNG. Must be discussed and deleted per WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Dagar is a valid disambiguation page. As there's no primary topic, there's no need to add the tag "(disambiguation)", as per WP:DABNAME. BTW, according to WP:DABNAME, Dagar (disambiguation) should be created & redirected to Dagar. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and TROUT the nominator for making a spurious nomination. I concur with NitinMlk that Dagar itself is a valid DAB. The fact that the articles linked there (which are all bluelinks, btw) might fail WP:GNG is not a reason to delete the DAB that holds those links. Delete the articles first, then we can discuss the DAB itself. Primefac (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac, the dab page was just recently created over a poorly-sourced clan article, which is what was actually nominated here. I think the nominator has had enough AfD-trouting lately. – Uanfala (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I invite Krishna Chaitanya Velaga to reconsider their nomination as they might not have noticed the change. Primefac (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep newly created dab page; don't know about the clan. – Uanfala (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have reverted it to the page it was when it was nominated, and created Dagar (disambiguation) with the content of this recent version. The dab page was created by overwriting an existing article, the wrong way to set about it at any time but particularly so when there is an ongoing AfD on the article. The AfD message says Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion. - I think that overwriting an article by a dab page is the equivalent of blanking it, and should not have been done. If the AfD results in deletion, then the dab page can be moved to the base name. PamD 08:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In light of that, I've stricken my !vote/comments above, as I have no strong opinions on a subject I know little about. Primefac (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:PamD, Irrespective of AfD, there's no wiki policy which allows you to vandalize any article, which you did with this edit. If you think your version – which is full of original research – is better than the then we can discuss that on the article's talkpage. And that's outside the scope of the ongoing AfD. Just because the nominator didn't follow WP:BEFORE, it doesn't give rights to anyone to vandalize the above article. So, I reverted the original research added by you. Please discuss your favored version on the article's talkpage, instead of reinstating the original research again.
On the contrary, if any edit was vandalism it was yours when you over-wrote an existing article, in the middle of an AfD discussion, to create a disambiguation page. I reverted your edit but created a disambiguation page containing the dab page entries you had contributed. Any "original research" was not mine but was the long-standing page under discussion at AfD. Your edit is not helpful and I have reverted it. Please let the AfD discussion discuss the page which the nominator nominated. 16:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PamD (talk • contribs) 16:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of the versions are written in stone. And it's so unfortunate that a senior user like you is adding the original research. Please just take some moments to think about your latest edit to this article. And you will realize your mistake. BTW, replacing one version with the other doesn't constitute the blanking of the article. It's just a content dispute, which we can resolve on the article's talkpage. In fact, we can add your version if you could provide its merits over the version reverted by you. - NitinMlk (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NitinMlk, PamD isn't adding original research, but simply restoring the version of the page that is actually under discussion here. PamD, clan/caste clans get turned into surname articles often enough. In my opinion, this practice is good because it preserves the page history which might give possible hooks to future editors willing to expand it with content about the surname's origin etc. – Uanfala (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But there's no policy which backs the unconstructive edits done by PamD at the above article. In fact, had the nom followed WP:BEFORE, this whole wastage of time could've been avoided. - NitinMlk (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: AfDs are for the deletion discussion of an article, instead of its any particular revision. As the Dagar is up for deletion, we should present its best version here & let the !voters discuss the result. Only way you could convert the above dab page into a clan article is by clearly developing consensus on the article's talk page that the Dagar clan is not only notable but also the primary topic here. But, in reality, let alone being primary topic, the caste even fails the WP:V. So, in the absence of any primary topic, Dagar should remain as the title of the dab page, as per WP:DABNAME. If you still want to create the caste article, you can create it under a title like Dagar clan. But you have to stop vandalizing the above dab page.
PS: I am reverting the vandalism done by you to the above dab page for the last time. After that, its up to others to deal with it. - NitinMlk (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the fact that Dagar (disambiguation) exists, and having read through WP:EDITATAFD again, I think that the discussion should be about the page as it exists. If it gets deleted, then the DAB can be moved here. If it stays, it can be improved. Primefac (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: First, read the your cited policy – WP:EDITATAFD – again. It only states that the blanking, redirecting & merging content to other articles is not allowed. I did none of that.
Second, read WP:DISCUSSAFD. It clearly states that disambiguation is not a reason for deletion. Also, read my !vote for other clarification. BTW, you should self-revert, as there's no policy which allows this revert. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, NitinMlk, you've made your point multiple times. I think it's time to DROPTHESTICK. Primefac (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, you should self-revert. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: I gave you two days to think about your deliberate vandalism, but to no avail. In fact, both of you don't actually agree to the original research, with which you are deliberately replacing the above page's content. And thereby behavior of you two is perfectly explained by WP:NOTPOINTy, which states: "As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point"." Now that combo of you two have done that enough times & other editors have seen your "point", please stop vandalising the mainspace article. Remember that one is 'free to edit' the article while this discussion or that discussion is going on. Also see WP:5P5.
PS: I am using an unsecured connection to make this comment, as my connection isn't working. So, I will disconnect after reverting your vandalism to the mainspace article. Hopefully any of you won't vandalise it again. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am genuinely curious - why is it so bloody important that the article that was nominated cannot be discussed? As it is, you're probably going to get what you want anyway, so why not have some patience? The existence of the article in its old/current form is not going to cause the internet to implode, nor is it going to dangerously jeopardize anything. I ask again, please DROPTHESTICK and let the AFD run its course. Primefac (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for the record, the actions taken by myself and PamD are not "vandalism" - they are perfectly acceptable edits made per WP:BRD (or in this case, BRRR). Primefac (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: First, unfortunately, many naive people think that Wikipedia is reliable, thereby believing the information present here. Along with that, Wikipedia's fundamental policy demands that only the reliably-sourced info can be added to the mainspace. And that's why I am trying to remove the unsourced info from there.
Second, the day users will 'drop the stick' against vandalism, Wikipedia will become redundant in no time.
Finally, in your latest revert, you clearly stated that "Undid revision ... by NitinMlk ... for the last time." Now I will revert you for the last time. After that, I won't revert either of you till the end of this AfD. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: BRRR is indeed effective! Now the mainspace page will keep on spreading misinformation till the closure of this AfD. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambiguation page – WP:DISCUSSAFD states that 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. As there's no primary topic here, 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. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2016 (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.