Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayani Mughal


 * 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. Black Kite 22:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Kayani Mughal

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

absence of word mughal kiyani in most of references and references given in article didnt matches with real context and references are misused — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danitor (talk • contribs)
 * This nomination was incomplete; the above is the reason suggested by the person who originally attempted to nominate the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

the actual point is about the article the references tells nothing about mughal kiyani (the title of article) insteadly it talks about kiyanis history or mughals history  seperatly note mughals is a separate tribe mainly refer to mongols  and kiyani is a surname used by ghakkars in rawalpindi region of pakistan which claims to be a persian tribe  due to their claim  of descendents of ancient kianian kings of iran and also by some tribes in afghanistan and iran who claim to be descents of ancient semi mythilogical kianian kings mughals and kiyanis are seperate words used by seperate groups of peaple any historical document didnt tells us any relation between them the main question was about mughal kiyani any reference given by writer of article didnt contain the word mughal kiyani  and didnt talks about mughal kiyani that what is its  history what is a valid prove of  mughal kiyani being a real mughal clan as writer has written it as a clan of mughal tribe the writer has given invalid and false proves about them i think the basic purpose of wikipedia is to provide a valid and true information based on valid and sufficiant proves  as i say above most of information given in article didnt discuss the real topic mughal kiyani and which disuss is not valid or which proves that mughal kiyani is a clan     so my request was that delete this article which is based on falses references and the information given about kiyanis and mughals should be moved to their seperate articles(kiyani,ghakkar and mughal) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.45.99.193 (talk • contribs)

according to wikipedia deletion policy that Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed in the light of above  reasons for deletion in wikipedia deletion policy  this article should be deleted because this article(kiyani mughal) didnt  attributes to reliable sources original theories and conclusions and this article is also a  hoaxe and all attempts to find a reliable sources to verify this article have failed these all reason are applying on article mughal kiyani and information written in article about mughal kiyani  so this should be delete as soon as possible  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danitor (talk • contribs) 08:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am not convinced by the pro-deletion comments. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

mr metropolian90 what should i do to convinced u I was talking about the articles main topic mughal kiyani the writer of the article divides it in to 3 paragraphs with following headlines history ,other kiyani tribes and diaspora  in history paragraph in starting lines and in dispora he writes about mughal kiyanis in which only in history paragraph he gives 3 references about  mughal kiyanis most of references are misused and didnt proves or gives us a valid information for examples as writer gives a reference from punjab caste p212 Others say that the Mughals proper, and especially the Chughattas and Qizilbashes are Kayanis

the full line or paragraph is as I have not been able to obtain saticfactory information regarding this word(kiyani).some says the city of kayan was the capital of kai kayus kai kusru and kai kubad and some says that the ghakkars callthemselves kiyani because they claim descent from these three kings.Others say that the Mughals proper, and especially the Chughattas and Qizilbashes are Kayanis and that the ghakkars call them selves canani or cananits because they claim descent from jacob or yacub who lived in canaan and that is the word which has been misread as kiyani(http://www.archive.org/stream/panjabcastes00ibbe#page/n7/mode/2up)

first of all author of the book(punjab castes) was not sure about above information which is based on different opinions secondly it didnt contain the word mughal kiyani main topic of the article or gives us a direct wording or use of word mughal kiyani or hteir existences as a clan the writer just misused the reference similarly other 2 references are also miused   eg   references from punjabi muslamans p94 and punjab cheifs p216 given by writer was not founded in original text[[Media:http://www.archive.org/stream/punjabimusalmans00wikeuoft#page/94/mode/1up]] http://www.apnaorg.com/books/punjab-chiefs/ as u know that any information without acceptable or valid references is considered as invaild and anyone cannot proved it without references.as i say above that mughal kiyani is the main topic or name of article but its reference from real context  didnt gives us a valid or realiable  information or even didnt talks about the topic about the main topic mughal kiyani so it should be deleted under the deletion policy of wikipedia the paragraph other kiyani tribes mainly talks about kianis history and mughals history separatly and didnt gives or talk about mughal kiyani as seprate articles of mughals and kiyanis were given so this information should be written or moved to these articles separatly as information given about mughals should be moved to mughal article and kiyani information should be moved to kiyani article even now if u were not convinced then plz my freind tell me how u will convinced for its deletion according to wikipedia deletion policy that Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed this article should be deleted because there is not a single reliable source which verify this article and i didnt found a single reliable source which confrimed it so plz my friend delete it  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danitor (talk • contribs) 12:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

i think my friend dgg u didnt understand what i want to say or what was my point for suggesting this article for deletion.in article writer mainly writes about the topic of mughal kiyani which is also the title of article it simply means that the article is about mughal kiyani as u know that any information is not considered as proveable or acceptable without realiable references or sources in wikipedia  in article mughal kiyani writer writes on his own giving wrong references if we would found any  realiable reference about mughal kiyani we would  discuss it but there is not a single realiable source which even talks about the mughal kiyani  or given information in the article u will even not able to found a single realiable source regarding the article. main point is that there is not a single realiable source which confrim the information given in article or even talks about the article so it should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.44.100.122 (talk) 09:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 23:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep there seems to be sources.   There seems to be a dispute about the exact status, but that's for the article talk p.  DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment - these clan/tribal articles are all horrific OR magnets, exposed to bitter feuds about whether some clan was Pathan or Moghul or whatever; whether their apical ancestors really existed or were just mythical; and so on and so forth. Its the same story every time, and these articles are invariably based (often exclusively, as here too) on 100+ year old British army-diary sources. Even then, only very few of these clan articles are sufficiently well documented for anything more than a line or two, and most could in fact be redirects to the article on the next higher tribal unit (e.g. Kayani Mughal => Mughal (tribe)). In short, this article is really just another representative of the wild and wooly Central Asian tribalism (tribes and subtribes and ethnicities and subethnicities and clans and subclans and subsubsubsub-clans).
 * That's not per-se a reason for delete though. The fact that at least one source identifies the "Kiáni" as a "clan" of "Moghal" is (IMO) sufficient evidence that such a clan exists and that the title "Kayani Mughal" is not a hoax.
 * While I am in agreement with the nominator that the sources are being abused (what is the "Other Kayani tribes" coatrack doing there?), that is not sufficient reason to delete the article either.
 * The nominator appears to be familiar with tribal makeups in the region, perhaps even with the Mughal tribe/Kayani clan in particular, so I suggest that he/she cleanup the article (remove the problematic material) rather that ask for the article to be deleted. -- Fullstop (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but keep it stubby until more reliable information can be found. Some of the old content sounds like the transcript of a speech given in front of a campfire. - Richfife (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2009 (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.