Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kahloon clan


 * 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. Number  5  7  15:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Kahloon clan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no explanation on why this group of people is notable. The source cited just mentions it in passing (no significant coverage). Google Search cannot find any reliable sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @Vanjagenije The name of the clan is Kahlon or Kahloon, the only reason why I put clan was to differentiate from the main page Kahloon. Here is more references other than the one reference provided (Kahlon is more common name):
 * 

--Nawabmalhi (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Not enough content outside this website for confirming any notability. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please look at these google searches:, the subject matter is notable. --Nawabmalhi (talk) 04:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What they have described about the clan? You believe that there is any scope? Bladesmulti (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Google search is not a source per se. I used Google search to show that there are no sources. Sources are needed to establish the notability. Could you provide us a reliable source that significantly covers this subject? Vanjagenije (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as no evidence of notability. – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 04:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The title Kahloon is no where mentioned in the Sources. Article has no significance. The subject and contents do not qualify for a separate article. --Mahi 09:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I am going to remove this source because we do not use stuff published by Gyan. I've also removed this because it is a reprint of a Raj census, which is notoriously unreliable. - Sitush (talk) 10:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing but passing mentions, almost all of which are from unreliable Raj sources. Basically, people bearing this name were enumerated in censuses that are now considered to be pretty useless exercises. - Sitush (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Sitush,Bladesmulti, Vanjagenije What about these:, Punjab, the land of beauty, love, and mysticism by Syed Abdul Qudoos Pg. 213 here is quote:  'The same tribe is Rajput in one district and Jat in another according to the position in local tribes. ... The important (Muslim) Jat tribes are as under:- Bajwa, Chatta, Cheema, Randhawa, Ghammon, Buta, Kahlon, Gil, Sehota, Tarrur, Waraich, ...' --Nawabmalhi (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * First one is one snippet book, would be helpful if you provide a quote. Second one is mention of Javed Safdar Kahlon which is irrelevant. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The book is just another listing, and neither the author nor the publisher are known to me. I've got no idea why he thinks they are an "important" tribe. The newspaper source is even worse and I've lost track of the number of times I've tried to explain to you that we cannot assume that someone bearing a particular name is affiliated with a particular clan. If we could, then Helen Reddy would have roots in south India and I am 99% certain she does not. - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Sitush, sorry for the confusion on the Newspaper Javed Safdar and Abrar-ul-Haq are both Kahlon and I was reffering to this quote:  'As a wealthy Jat in a constituency where Jats are the largest, though a generally poor, biradiri, Haq is relying on two factors to help him win vote...' . Now turning to the book the author and publishing company seem reliable to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nawabmalhi (talk • contribs) 19:13 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose I have added two new sources that are not raj. Their existence is further bolstered through the Google searches and Raj sources, I think deletion is overstepping in this particular scenario as referencing is not too difficult. And they are many sources in hindi, urdu, and punjabi which back their existence. I think the task should be restoration and authentication in relation to articles on Jat people.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to read WP:GNG. Mere existence is not a reason to keep. No-one here is denying that people called Kahlon exist. - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is becoming disturbing, I agree. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete- fails WP:GNG Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Question What is a raj census? Do you mean any census taken under the Empire of India?  Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @ Nyttend yes they are census' taken during British Raj. These census along with most sources published during the Raj are not considered that reliable when it comes to any sort of history because they are exaggerated and exenorated acounts taken from different tribes describing their origin and history.
 * However when it comes to proof of existence of certain tribe or entity they are relatively reliable but use beyond this on Wikipedia is not recommended because figuring out what is fact or myth becomes complicated and deciphering the sources and interpreting sources will be original research.
 * As a side note a census is more reliable than any published Raj source. Nawabmalhi (talk)
 * See User:Sitush/sandbox3 for a (very slow-developing) draft about the Raj census operations. And yet again, Nawabmalhi, I must point out that mere existence is insufficient for retention. - Sitush (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment This is a much larger issue and one articles deletion is not a big deal. So if concensus is present, I suggest we close this discussion. Also for future reference, which part of WP:GNG does this article not meet right now? ---Nawabmalhi (talk)
 * Well, the opening sentence says it all: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject ..." We have no significant coverage in reliable sources, and a part of the reason why those sources are not reliable is because they are not independent and instead just took the word of those whom they interviewed (as you have pretty much said yourself in an earlier comment here). - Sitush (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Zero reliable sources. Valoem   talk   contrib  05:54, 9 January 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.