Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rind Khan

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 redirect to Rind tribe. Merge and redirect SpinningSpark 09:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rind Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Person seems to be not notable as per WP:ANYBIO ~ Amkgp 💬 15:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Doesn’t meet WP:GNG in any way. The sources are extremely unreliable and the article contains original research. RedRiver660 talk 16:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Already removed some unreliable references. The article already has 2 reliable newspaper references and another reliable source. I'll add some more reliable sources soon. Person is certainly notable! Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The information stated in the article may not be supported by references YET but it’s all fact-based. This article was created not too long ago so I think it’s understandable that not much work has been done on it yet. More references will be present in the article soon. Do not delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mowahid Mohsin (talk • contribs) 00:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently at the time of typing, 11 reliable references are present, and I believe that it should be enough to remove the “article for deletion” tag because almost every sentence is now supported by at least one reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mowahid Mohsin (talk • contribs) 01:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Mowahid, you are new to wikipedia and do not fully understand how wikipedia works. Please read the policies WP:RS and WP:SYNTH. Only a single reference cited counts towards notability of this person, as I demonstrated below. I suggest you to accept the "merge" option I proposed. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Due to the removal of the unreliable references, I am switching to keep, although count this !vote as more of a “weak keep”. I think that this article may still need some more development though. RedRiver660 talk 01:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have overturned the previous "keep" closure of this discussion. See Special:Permalink/964632624#NAC. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the subject failing personal GNG standards for having his own stand alone article. I see lists of relatives - wikipedia is not Ancestry.com. I see sources that don't specifically pertain to the article's subject. For example three citations are the same - the definition of "rind". Three are lists of Baloch tribes. I didn't cross check all the citations but the first citation from the Dawn news site makes no specific mention of a "Rind Khan". This article seems to be a good-faith effort to elevate a person who is seen as deserving broad recognition but doesn't have sources to support notability. Blue Riband► 16:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The flaws of the article were unreliable references and lack of references, both have been fixed. The reference from Dawn News which was mentioned earlier can easily be removed. And instead of complaining about the article’s flaws, why don’t much more experienced editors help to correct it? Only minor references mistakes are left which can be fixed and I disagree that there is a reason to delete it now.

Response I took a look at the revised article and there I see two citations to baask.com which is a message board forum. These types of sources are not considered reliable as anybody can post anything with no fact checking and no editorial oversight. (You may find it helpful to look at WP:VERIFY which explains in detail what are reliable sources.) The citation to the Daily Times regarding Punnu Fort makes no mention of him. Generally speaking, if one is having trouble finding sources to support a person's notability then that person doesn't have the accomplishments or depth of historic coverage for inclusion. Blue Riband► 00:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nonreliable baask.com source basically retells A glossary of the Tribes..., so I am replacing baask ref with glossary ref.

India Today ref says not a word about him either. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Asiatic society mentions him only once in a long pedigree of a some person, from whihc it follows that he is a son of Jalal Khan. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Turk-Islam world is used to support a hypothetical stamenent "Rind Khan like the rest of Baloch people...", and nothing about him. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge No refernces which discuss the person in depth, but since he is a founder of a a main Baloch tribe, all reasonable info is to be merged into Rind tribe. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Blue, L235, ~ Amkgp User:RedRiver660 Ngrewal1 to review their votes after my cleanup and another option. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Part of me is thinking weak delete and another part of me is thinking weak keep. It seems like merge is more reasonable then both. Do note that I changed my name to Eternal Shadow. Eternal Shadow (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Rind tribe as per the in-depth analysis and current state of the article ~ Amkgp 💬 15:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to mention another thing... there are many articles on Wikipedia which have only a few lines and 1-3 references (for example the article on Rind Tribe). How come those articles are totally safe but this one got nominated for deletion? That’s why I think:

• Merge Since the article on Rind Tribe has a few lines and this one has some references issues, I think it would be better to merge them into a single article. The info regarding the tribe should be at top and all info regarding Rind Khan should be under a heading at the bottom of the article. That way the information in both articles will remain on Wikipedia and this issue would come to an end.

Reply You make a good point about Wikipedia stub articles containing only 1-3 references. What should matter is 1) establishment of notability 2) with reliable sources. This editor has questions the Rind Khan article on both criteria, although some here see things otherwise. Blue Riband► 17:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that the deletion of this article should even be a thing now because out of the seven users who have voted so far, only one user says that it should be deleted. And then it’s being stated that the article should have at least 2 reliable references, well, there are currently 5 references and one of them is from a book and another from a newspaper and those 2 are fairly reliable. And literally every sentence in the article is supported by a reference so I think this matter should come to an end already. And another user didn’t like the list of relatives saying that Wikipedia is not Ancestry.com, the list of relatives is also removed now. And the last thing I wanted to mention to prove that this deletion matter is totally un fair is that the article on Jalal Khan (the father of Rind Khan) literally had 2 sentence, one regarding the meaning of his name and other saying that he was the founder of Baloch Tribe before I added much more content in that article almost a month ago. That article was published from years without getting noticed and had no useful info at all but it was totally safe but this article gets nominated for deletion? Wow. Mowahid Mohsin (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply What generally happens is that an editor comes across an article, reads it, then asks "What exactly has this person done or accomplished?" This is probably why User:Amkgp made this AfD proposal. I still don't see what accomplishments Rind Khan made to deserve inclusion, but the decision won't be mine. Blue Riband► 17:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Blue Riband, you are currently the only one who voted for “delete”. And you ask what Rind Khan has accomplished? Well, I don’t know whether you have noticed or not but establishing a whole new tribe ain’t that easy and it should be enough to be remembered. And I must also add that this article didn’t even have had the chance to get more information added into it because it got nominated for deletion on the 1st or 2nd day after being created. The article has been cleaned up of all mistakes that were the reason of it being nominated for deletion so... it should be alright now shouldn’t it? References: added, Mistakes: removed, Unnecessary info: removed, Faulty references: removed, Why should he be remembered?: cuz he’s the founder of one of the main Baloch Tribes, What to do now: either remove the “nominated for deletion” tag nor merge it with Rind Tribe article. Simple. No need to waste anyone’s effort or time. Mowahid Mohsin (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Mowahid Mohsin, an admin will take an action soon. Don't remove the deletion tag or merge yourself. ~ Amkgp 💬 05:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I won’t remove it, don’t worry. By the way why is there even a need to argue that the article should be deleted? All mistakes have been corrected and only one out of 7 users suggests the article to be deleted. Isn’t this enough to close this case? I’m tired of fighting for the article that I created and I’m not willing to waste more time on this pointless argument. If this matter would not have been brought up in the first place I’m pretty sure that there would have been a lot more info in the article. The Makran area of the subcontinent was not very advanced in literature and other stuff 700 years ago so not much is known about Rind Khan. If who ever is in charge of this matter permits, I’d like to spend time researching about him for Wikipedia instead of wasting time trying to prevent the article from getting deleted. Wikipedia should be a website where information is provided to the knowledge-hungry people by other people who are kind enough to do that for free instead of being a place where text-wars are going on. Mowahid Mohsin (talk) 05:27, 2 July 2020 (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.