- 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. The concerns about insufficient sourcing, not convincingly addressed by those wanting to keep the article, add weight to the argument for deletion in light of WP:V. Sandstein 18:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Raja Allahdad Khan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nothing in the article shows why he is notable. Searches on The History of the Poonch Tribes - Muhammad Din Fawk (1934) (don't know where that came from meant to write News, Newspaper), Scholar, Highbeam and JStor produced zero results.
Onel5969
TT me
03:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
you are being biased, please go through reference mentioned and link https://books.google.com.pk/books/about/Raja_Allahdad_Khan.html?id=XzjTMgEACAAJ&redir_esc=y. Also the reference provided in the article states and I reproduce "Chib Rajputs of Lehri and Khoiratta were the major Jagirdars and most influentials in the royal courts of Maharajahs, after partition Rajah Allahdad Khan Jagirdar of Lehri was threatened by the mob of peasants who looted the family houses when Rajah Allahdad Khan and his family took refuge with the Royal Gujar family in Chalianwala, Gujrat for six months."(The History of the Poonch Tribes - Muhammad Din Fawk (1934)). yes I know it produced zero resuls because not every book is available on internet. Wikibaba1977 ( talk) 17:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Also go through the link for more detail please http://www.worldlibrary.org/articles/raja_allahdad_khan. Wikibaba1977 ( talk) 18:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - okay, having looked at the history, I understand how that absurd comment was inserted in my nomination - Please do not edit other editor's comments. Your additional sources add nothing to the notability of this individual. You might also think twice about throwing terms like "biased" around without evidence. Onel5969 TT me 18:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete The WorldLibrary article is unsourced, and crowd sourced. While the individual may have historical notability, it has not been established in the article. This is what must happen to keep it. It must be well sourced AND establish why this individual is notable. Without those things - at the very least - we can not keep it. I am willing to be patient in the hopes it gets improved, and hope that my mind can be changes. In the meantime, calling other editors biased will not serve your cause. Scr★pIron IV 18:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment The Google book specified is nothing more than a collection of Wikipedia articles, and that also does not qualify as a reliable source Scr★pIron IV 18:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: he seems significant enough for an article if what says about him in the article is true, but more sources are needed. Snowsuit Wearer ( talk| contribs) 20:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
In relation to http://www.worldlibrary.org/articles/raja_allahdad_khan (Sourced from World Heritage Encyclopedia™). Please refer to clause of Reliability in specific contexts of Identifying reliable sources which states that Reputable tertiary sources, such as lower-level textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited. Wikibaba1977 ( talk) 11:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
please refer to clause of General notability guideline Notability
- "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
- "Sources" [1] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. [2] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
Also please refer to Responsibility for providing citations in Verifiability
consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. [3] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. [4]
please read these clauses carefuly. Wikibaba1977 ( talk) 11:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
References
- ^ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
- ^ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.
- ^ It may be that the article contains so few citations that it is impractical to add specific citation needed tags, in which case consider tagging a section with {{ unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{ refimprove}} or {{ unreferenced}}. In the case of a disputed category or on a disambiguation page, consider asking for a citation on the talk page.
- ^ When tagging or removing such material, please keep in mind that such edits can be easily misunderstood. Some editors object to others making chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material. Do not concentrate only on material of a particular POV, as that may result in accusations that you are in violation of WP:NPOV.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. .
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. .
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 08:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 08:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Agree This article is fit for deletion
KCVelaga
☚╣✉╠☛
13:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- DElete -- We have a stub that says that the person is the grandson of a person who might possibly be notable (no link). Sounds utterly NN to me. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment The abovementioned both users didnt specify any reason for deletion . Remember its not a vote. Wikibaba1977 ( talk) 06:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Another link for to establish the notability of person in question is [1]. I have already added it in the article. Wikibaba1977 ( talk) 06:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep The article is definitely lacking in terms of citation to reliable sources, but (1) he is verifiable and (2) given his status as a jagirdar (large feudal landowner under the raja), military commander, and status equivalent to a provincial legislator at the court of
Jammu and Kashmir, it seems that he meets notability requirements. The problem of inadequate citations, by itself, is not a reason for deletion. I agree that "Muslim Rajputs", a paper for a Sociology class at The Lahore School of Economics is not a terribly reliable source. Also, while "Muslim Rajputs" does not cite to the 2010 version of this Wikipedia article, it does link to it; and there is no other reference citation provided for the paragraph about Allahdad Khan on page 18. Although it is interesting to note that only two prominent Chibs are discussed in that paper. As "Allahdad Khan" is not an uncommon name, it would help in locating sources to know his approximate dates. The partition mentioned in the single quote in the article, cannot be the
Durand Line (its too early), and as the book was published in 1934 before the Pakistan-India partition, it can't be that one. However, it could refer to a partition of northern Rasput territory. Allahdad Khan must date from after his grandfather Raja Abu Faiz Talib Khan 1838/1870, and been born in the late 1800s. I will keep looking. --
Bejnar (
talk)
18:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - If that is indeed the case, I would say that it still does not meet the notability requirements, since he "held a seat". And since the sources are unreliable, not even that claim is proven. At best, userfy and put through the AfC process. Onel5969 TT me 19:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- I am unclear as to what you mean by "held a seat" doesn't meet WP:POL? On you other point, reliability is not black and white, there are shades. It may be the case that the sociology paper is more reliable than many music review sites. However, it does appear to be an undergraduate team paper. The book The History of the Poonch Tribes is likely to as reliable as early XXth century Indian sources go. The quotation provided in the article implies that Allahdad Khan is discussed earlier in the book. We will have to have the editors who have access to that volume speak to its other contents. -- Bejnar ( talk) 03:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - It is unclear whether the Punjab District Gazetteer of 1909, page 65 which refers to Allahdad Khan, son of Sultan Khan of Channi who died in 1889, is the same, but it is likely. -- Bejnar ( talk) 03:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Very short article with no substantial sources and no assertion of notability. There's only one link to this article ( Chib), making this near-orphan status as well. Aerospeed ( Talk) 13:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Being a member of the Kashmiri court (council) seems to be an assertion of notability. See discussion above about WP:POL. -- Bejnar ( talk) 04:37, 22 September 2015 (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.
- 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. The concerns about insufficient sourcing, not convincingly addressed by those wanting to keep the article, add weight to the argument for deletion in light of WP:V. Sandstein 18:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Raja Allahdad Khan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nothing in the article shows why he is notable. Searches on The History of the Poonch Tribes - Muhammad Din Fawk (1934) (don't know where that came from meant to write News, Newspaper), Scholar, Highbeam and JStor produced zero results.
Onel5969
TT me
03:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
you are being biased, please go through reference mentioned and link https://books.google.com.pk/books/about/Raja_Allahdad_Khan.html?id=XzjTMgEACAAJ&redir_esc=y. Also the reference provided in the article states and I reproduce "Chib Rajputs of Lehri and Khoiratta were the major Jagirdars and most influentials in the royal courts of Maharajahs, after partition Rajah Allahdad Khan Jagirdar of Lehri was threatened by the mob of peasants who looted the family houses when Rajah Allahdad Khan and his family took refuge with the Royal Gujar family in Chalianwala, Gujrat for six months."(The History of the Poonch Tribes - Muhammad Din Fawk (1934)). yes I know it produced zero resuls because not every book is available on internet. Wikibaba1977 ( talk) 17:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Also go through the link for more detail please http://www.worldlibrary.org/articles/raja_allahdad_khan. Wikibaba1977 ( talk) 18:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - okay, having looked at the history, I understand how that absurd comment was inserted in my nomination - Please do not edit other editor's comments. Your additional sources add nothing to the notability of this individual. You might also think twice about throwing terms like "biased" around without evidence. Onel5969 TT me 18:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete The WorldLibrary article is unsourced, and crowd sourced. While the individual may have historical notability, it has not been established in the article. This is what must happen to keep it. It must be well sourced AND establish why this individual is notable. Without those things - at the very least - we can not keep it. I am willing to be patient in the hopes it gets improved, and hope that my mind can be changes. In the meantime, calling other editors biased will not serve your cause. Scr★pIron IV 18:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment The Google book specified is nothing more than a collection of Wikipedia articles, and that also does not qualify as a reliable source Scr★pIron IV 18:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: he seems significant enough for an article if what says about him in the article is true, but more sources are needed. Snowsuit Wearer ( talk| contribs) 20:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
In relation to http://www.worldlibrary.org/articles/raja_allahdad_khan (Sourced from World Heritage Encyclopedia™). Please refer to clause of Reliability in specific contexts of Identifying reliable sources which states that Reputable tertiary sources, such as lower-level textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited. Wikibaba1977 ( talk) 11:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
please refer to clause of General notability guideline Notability
- "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
- "Sources" [1] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. [2] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
Also please refer to Responsibility for providing citations in Verifiability
consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. [3] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. [4]
please read these clauses carefuly. Wikibaba1977 ( talk) 11:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
References
- ^ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
- ^ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.
- ^ It may be that the article contains so few citations that it is impractical to add specific citation needed tags, in which case consider tagging a section with {{ unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{ refimprove}} or {{ unreferenced}}. In the case of a disputed category or on a disambiguation page, consider asking for a citation on the talk page.
- ^ When tagging or removing such material, please keep in mind that such edits can be easily misunderstood. Some editors object to others making chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material. Do not concentrate only on material of a particular POV, as that may result in accusations that you are in violation of WP:NPOV.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. .
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. .
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 08:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 08:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Agree This article is fit for deletion
KCVelaga
☚╣✉╠☛
13:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- DElete -- We have a stub that says that the person is the grandson of a person who might possibly be notable (no link). Sounds utterly NN to me. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment The abovementioned both users didnt specify any reason for deletion . Remember its not a vote. Wikibaba1977 ( talk) 06:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Another link for to establish the notability of person in question is [1]. I have already added it in the article. Wikibaba1977 ( talk) 06:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep The article is definitely lacking in terms of citation to reliable sources, but (1) he is verifiable and (2) given his status as a jagirdar (large feudal landowner under the raja), military commander, and status equivalent to a provincial legislator at the court of
Jammu and Kashmir, it seems that he meets notability requirements. The problem of inadequate citations, by itself, is not a reason for deletion. I agree that "Muslim Rajputs", a paper for a Sociology class at The Lahore School of Economics is not a terribly reliable source. Also, while "Muslim Rajputs" does not cite to the 2010 version of this Wikipedia article, it does link to it; and there is no other reference citation provided for the paragraph about Allahdad Khan on page 18. Although it is interesting to note that only two prominent Chibs are discussed in that paper. As "Allahdad Khan" is not an uncommon name, it would help in locating sources to know his approximate dates. The partition mentioned in the single quote in the article, cannot be the
Durand Line (its too early), and as the book was published in 1934 before the Pakistan-India partition, it can't be that one. However, it could refer to a partition of northern Rasput territory. Allahdad Khan must date from after his grandfather Raja Abu Faiz Talib Khan 1838/1870, and been born in the late 1800s. I will keep looking. --
Bejnar (
talk)
18:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - If that is indeed the case, I would say that it still does not meet the notability requirements, since he "held a seat". And since the sources are unreliable, not even that claim is proven. At best, userfy and put through the AfC process. Onel5969 TT me 19:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- I am unclear as to what you mean by "held a seat" doesn't meet WP:POL? On you other point, reliability is not black and white, there are shades. It may be the case that the sociology paper is more reliable than many music review sites. However, it does appear to be an undergraduate team paper. The book The History of the Poonch Tribes is likely to as reliable as early XXth century Indian sources go. The quotation provided in the article implies that Allahdad Khan is discussed earlier in the book. We will have to have the editors who have access to that volume speak to its other contents. -- Bejnar ( talk) 03:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - It is unclear whether the Punjab District Gazetteer of 1909, page 65 which refers to Allahdad Khan, son of Sultan Khan of Channi who died in 1889, is the same, but it is likely. -- Bejnar ( talk) 03:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Very short article with no substantial sources and no assertion of notability. There's only one link to this article ( Chib), making this near-orphan status as well. Aerospeed ( Talk) 13:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Being a member of the Kashmiri court (council) seems to be an assertion of notability. See discussion above about WP:POL. -- Bejnar ( talk) 04:37, 22 September 2015 (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.