Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rana Jashraj


 * 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. This is a dispute about the content (and/or name) of an article, and deletion cannot resolve it. See WP:DR for methods for how to resolve such disputes and links to the proper fora in which to address them.  Sandstein  08:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Rana Jashraj

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The creator of the page has created this page with a ulterior motive. The page was there with name Dada Jasraj, which did not collaborate to the facts of this page. As Dada Jasraj could not have killed Gengis Khan, so he simply made a redirect.. Further, see here Dada Jasraj page as it was with citations and references. He deleted all the contents of the page Dada Jasraj and created this page Rana Jashraj giving their Lohanas version of folk-tale and story and made a redirect to this page. Wikipedia being an encyclopaedia should not tolerate this type of eye-wash and display of wrong statements. He should have asked for a merge of Dada Jasraj with his newly created page Raja Jashraj. But he did not do it deliberately because the original Dada Jasraj contents did not confirm to what he wants to highlight, so he took an easy way and just created a page and redirected Dada Jasraj page to it. Jethwarp (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment : As a proof to my above statement see his talk page with user DCI, where he clearly says that on 29 Novemebr that [quote] Rana Jashra was a king of Lohar Gadha, who killed Genghis Khan(controversial). folk deity of Lohana,Bhanushali etc. castes of India. i creat on my user page to rewrite already a page as Dada Jasraj. but i am not satisfy with the article. need your help[un-quote]. I want to say who is he to say that as he is not satisfied with other page ( which cited many references that Jashraj could not have killed Genghis Khan - so he just re-wrote the article with new title and his POV . Also the book he cites in refrence in his page Dreams half finished is written by an industrialist Nanji Kalidas Mehta of their Lohana caste, who has just mentioned folk-fare of Jashrai, as prevalent in their community. That cannot be a relibale source, as author is not an historian. Dreams Half-finished is an auto-biography written by Nanji Kalidas Mehta. Whereas the Lohana community historian claims that Jasraj killing Gengis Khan cannot be ture Here I would like to add that this being the historical fact, our legends saying that Dada Jasraj killed Chengizkhan and that Taimurlang also lost his life at Dada's hands, needs to be corrected. Chengiz died in the year AD 1227 while fighting with Tanguts in Mongolia and lies buried in Burkan Qaldun-Mangolia. So aiso, Taimur died in AD 1405 at Otraer on Jaxartes river in war against China. Lohana History by R. T. Somaiya.  Further, the other website cited Histoty of Bhanushali community - is in Gujarati language (my mother toungue) and does not mention anything about Gengis Khan or Shamsuddin it is false citation. I would rather request Admin to restrict the User:Bhavinkundaliya from editing any further. Jethwarp (talk) 07:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  —Jethwarp (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Rana Jashraj is not only Lohana, but also worship by Bhanushali, Khati Brahmin, and Saraswat Brahmin, million of people and they believe this. and it was reliable source by google books. and other ref by Upendra Thakur. and third party evidence by Bhanushali history in gujrati.

and i ask question which ref. is reliable? http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=e8_PTpO0EobUrQeBtPjCDA&ct=result&sqi=2&id=faZWAAAAMAAJ&dq=genghiskhan%2C+jashraj&q=Jashraj or http://www.genealogywise.com/forum/topics/lohana-history

and timur was purhaps kileed in the battle with Khokhar same name cause to mistake.Bhavinkundaliya (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments. I'm not taking any side here, but I'd just like to make a few suggestions. The old version of the article is not irretrievable, and it's possible to revert back to it if that's what you want to do. Also, we can save the text currently on the article, and add it on as a separate section. This way, all points of view are included. I do not wish to get involved in this, as I feel that you will be capable of resolving this. However, if you need more help, you may find some guidance here, at the Mediation Cabal, which offers some assistance when it comes to content disputes. Thank you both for your contributions to this site, and good luck resolving this issue.  DCI  talk 22:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It was suggested by mediators that a discussion on this be opened here.  DCI  talk 23:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 'COMMENT : As suggested by [User:DCI - the author should admit his wrong doing and may revert to the old version of Dada Jasraj as is here, which was written with Neutral Point of View before my any further comments in this matter.Jethwarp (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How about we combine both versions, and have an article respecting all points of view? That way, the contributions of both of you can be included.  If you two decide to revert the article, please save a copy of the current one somewhere, so it isn't lost.  Again, I'd like to thank both of you for your work on this article.   DCI  talk 03:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 *  Strong Keep - There are glaring discrepancies in the reason for deletion by the nominator.Can the nominator tell the guideline according to which this article should be deleted.To me this present article has reliable sources (not all but enough to pass the guideline) and thus passes WP:RS and WP:GNG. According to the nominator User:Bhavinkundaliya changed the page.See this.The nominator says-->

"The creator of the page has created this page with a ulterior motive. The page was there with name Dada Jasraj, which did not collaborate to the facts of this page. As Dada Jasraj could not have killed Gengis Khan, so he simply made a redirect. . Further, see here  Dada Jasraj page as it was with citations and references. He deleted all the contents of the page Dada Jasraj and created this page Rana Jashraj giving their Lohanas version of folk-tale and story and made a redirect to this page."

This page allegedly had citations and references which User:Bhavinkundaliya changed.

The links in the previous version( which the nominator says was the most accurate one ) can be summarised as following.
 * 1) http://www.genealogywise.com/forum/topics/lohana-history - This website's page says it is a "Genealogy Social Network" and moreover its a forum.How can a social network/Forum become a 'Reliable source'?If such things start happening Facebook will become a reliable source.According to WP:SPS--"whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated".In encyclopedia we do not "tolerate this type of eye-wash and display of wrong statements".
 * 2) http://shethiaparivar.com/html/jasrajdada.html - This website's main page says "shethiaparivar website is about shethia parivar community who mainly belong to Kutch Gujarat.Main purpose of this website and group is to provide a mechanism to connect people belonging to Shethia Bhanushali Community". Again we see a more or less social networking website.This it is not a reliable source.
 * 3) http://www.alamahabibi.com/English%20Articles%5CE-Madr_wa_Moi.htm - This is a reference for "this seems another folk-tale as most of the other historians claim that Sabuktigin died of illness in 997 AD and was buried in Ghazni" and not about the context of "Dada Jasraj" killing chengis khan and thus I won't even comment on its reliability.
 * 4) Google book- this reference is used in the present article.
 * 5) Links 4 & 5 have malwares in it and so I could not even check what was the content.
 * 6) http://www.genealogywise.com/forum/topics/lohana-history - by R.T Somaiya is again from the "Genealogy Social Network" website.

Thus the nominator is completely wrong in saying that the previous version was correct.Now, that the version has been changed to the present situation of the article the reliability has improved(partially).Even the by "Kalidas Mehta, Nanji" is a by far better source than "this" (as given by the nominator because again this links to the "Genealogy Social Network" and thus not at all a reliable source).


 * The question of "Dada Jasraj could not have killed Gengis Khan" is a very difficult one to answer.I could not find confident reliable source to answer this question and thus its better to say that it is a legend(the word legend is very flexible to accommodate this issue).True or not we should leave it to the imagination.I am in support of adding this legend information because this info is given in the book citation.The nominator says "Whereas the Lohana community historian claims that Jasraj killing Gengis Khan cannot be ture(sic)".I ask if this author(R.T Somaiya) is a historian then he must have published books(not self published books,mind it).Citing such books will be the effective tool in resolving this issue.But I will take a strong exception in citing sources from "http://www.genealogywise.com" because it is basically a social networking website and not a reliable source.To me this is a more reliable source because it is written by someone from " Department of Sociology, Centre for the Study of Minorities and Social Change,University of Bristol".This source writes about the history of Lohanas and also about "Dada Jasraj" by saying "jasraj and his men fought ferociously and jasraj managed to spear chenkizkhan to death"(page 16 of the above link).But still its not "chengiz khan" and thus "Dada Jasraj killing the former" may be still be a legend.

Presently I believe the sources no.-->2 & 3 are not reliable(but there are other reliable sources to make this article notable).Now, the nominator is asking "Admin to restrict the User:Bhavinkundaliya from editing any further".I believe this is too much.Rather i would say that kudos to User:Bhavinkundaliya for adding atleast some reliable sources to the article. Vivekananda De  --tAlK 15:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment : Let me point out why the article is worth a delete.

I have never said previous page was better all I said was it was written with Neutral Point of View unlike this one. see my comments on Talk page of Dada Jasraj. Even the old article was not up to Wikipedia criteria. Further, I think article it self is not worth keeping this one or other one being discussed for the following reasons :-

Creator of page has used following references - which are unreliable and those which are reliable mention nothing of the things written in article.

1. Dreams half expressed written by Nanji Kalidas Mehta is an auto-biography and has mentioned folk-tale of Rana Jashraj - as he was from Lohana caste. Nanji Kalidas was a businessmand however he mentions of a historian named Shiva Prasad Sharma of Gazni. Never heard of him google search result zero.

2. http://shethiaparivar.com/html/jasrajdada.html - sethia parivar site used by bhavinkundaliya mentions timeline of dada jashraj as born 1032 ascended throne 1048 and died as 1058 AD. ( the timeline does not match with time line of gengis khan )  and as said by you is not RS.

3. http://www.lohanatimes.org/history.asp - Lohana history is again a community website - not RS.

4. Sindhi culture - does not mention anything about jasraj killing anyone or his date or time of reign.

5. Firmes et entreprises en Inde: Ia firme lignagere dans ses reseaux - mentions jashraj only as a folk-deity worshipped by lohana nothing else about his time of reign of killing of gengis khan.

6. Further, the other source Lohana History as cited in other version mentions timeline of Jasraj as 970 and 1000 citing some R.T. Somaiya, a Lohana historian it also mentions that considering Jasraj could not have killed Gengis Khan or Taimur Lang. But again this is not a Reliable source ( as pointed by user vivek de also ) being a social network site. So the article has very little or no sources to back what is says.

In conclusion the article fails WP:BIO and WP:RS and has no third party sources WP:THIRDPARTY apart from Lohana community to back the article. Further, Tomb of Genghis Khan is still a subject of speculation and here Nanji Kalidas Mehta says that it lies near Multan, which says in Chinese Here lies Khan Khan Gengis Khan whom Rana Jashraj of Lohar Gadha dealt a fatal blow - if this would have been true it would have been a World Heritage Site and most important historical structure of today's Pakistan. I would rather suggest jokingly that may be it falls under WP:HOAX. Jethwarp (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC) If anybody notices he/she will see that the nominator has problem with only "Dada Jasraj could not have killed Gengis Khan".But this is no reason for deleting a whole article about a person talked about in three books and by a person from "Department of Sociology, Centre for the Study of Minorities and Social Change,University of Bristol".This issue will simply be resolved by saying "legend has it that Dada Jasraj killed Chengis Khan".But for that you dont need to delete a complete article.P.S:It passes WP:RS quite easily as all the books exist. Vivekananda De  --tAlK 16:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 *  Reply - I have already said that in the present article sources 2 & 3 are not reliable.WP:HOAX says "Wikipedia requires material to be verifiable to a reliable published source. If challenged, the burden is on the original author to prove the claims in the article".I have said that "Dada jasraj killing chengis khan" can be kept as a legend related info.Now, lets talk about the sources that have problems according to you.
 * 1) Dreams half expressed - The above comment says "Nanji Kalidas was a businessmand however he mentions of a historian named Shiva Prasad Sharma of Gazni. Never heard of him google search result".Is it not a book that exists.Search world-cat website for its existence.The writer is a lohana himself and so it would be accurate info if he writes about himself.At least its a relaible source to say the person in the article existed.
 * 2) Sindhi culture" does not mention anything about jasraj killing anyone or his date or time of reign".As I said jasraj killing somebody is a legend.Even this is a reliable source because it talks about the person mentioned about in the article(lets leave killing for the time being).According to this source this person existed and is notable to have a book written about/at least talked about in a book.
 * 3) Firmes et entreprises en Inde: Ia firme lignagere dans ses reseaux -" mentions jashraj only as a folk-deity worshipped by lohana nothing else about his time of reign of killing of gengis khan".Again killing! Its a legend for gods sake.True or not lets leave it to our imagination.


 * Reply : The website you cite from "Department of Sociology, Centre for the Study of Minorities and Social Change,University of Bristol"  again has conflicting things 1. it mentions Jasraj, a Lohana Kshatriya hero who lost his life while defending his domain on 22 January many centuries ago his date of death as 22 January but not the year that is a great source.  2. It says A Lohana warrior Jasraj had beheaded Changezkhan in the Multan fort. Although historical “evidence” as normally understood by modern historians may not substantiate such stories - so it says this thing and refutes it also.

I wonder if wikipedia accepts it as a Reliable source.!!!

In the end seems that you are going back on your earlier statements saying this is a legend so there are no reliable sources. I can see creator has asked your help to defend his case on your talk page. This may fall under WP:CANVAS on side of Bhavinkundaliya. You were no way involved in creating or editing this or earlier version. As a rule should have avoided voting and commenting on this AfD after being asked for help just like User:DCI did. Let Bhavinkundaliya defend his case. The article can also be considered as a delete as WP:OR. Jethwarp (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment User VivekDe User:Vivek7de is ( for further info see his talk page )


 *  Reply - Yes Bhavinkundaliya has asked for my help because he is not very much comfortable with argumenting in english which is quite evident from the comment he made here.But my comments here are largely my own feelings and are not influenced by anybody else.WP:CANVAS says "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following:On the talk pages of concerned editors who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed".For your information I am currently commenting on two BLP deletions and have commented on india/pakistan related topics on multiple occasions.Thus I am qualified enough to comment on this.If I would have been influenced I would not have said that "in the present article sources 2 & 3 are not reliable".Lets get a few things straigth.Right.

If the above points are correct then it simply means the person talked about in the article is notable enough(thus passes WP:GNG) and there are reliable sources to prove it.(thus it passes WP:RS and its not a WP:HOAX).Moreover you yourself have said earlier in the comments that and thus acknowledge that the person aforementioned is being talked about in the reliable sources. Thus it is still a strong keep from me.
 * 1) All the books and "Department of Sociology, Centre for the Study of Minorities and Social Change,University of Bristol" document talk about the person in the article.Correct.That means the person existed.
 * Now,if we have multiple books(3) and a university department talking about a person which naturally shows that the person is notable.You don't have books and universities talking about non-notable people just for fun.
 * 1) "does not mention anything about jasraj killing anyone or his date or time of reign"
 * 2) "mentions jashraj only as a folk-deity worshipped by lohana nothing else about his time of reign of killing of gengis khan"


 * WP:OR says "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.The "Department of Sociology, Centre for the Study of Minorities and Social Change,University of Bristol" paper also cites info from

Unfortunately, all these books can be seen by paid view,so I cannot quote anything from them.I ask if the "Department of Sociology, Centre for the Study of Minorities and Social Change,University of Bristol" paper is wrong then so are all these books.But rather its the other way round.The nominator is trying to use every trick in the book to push this article for deletion even though there exists multiple books as a proof of its notability.
 * 1) "Mahajati Gujrati" by Chandrakant Bakshi,Navabharat Sahitya Mandir pg 228---given at the end of page 2
 * 2) "Report on the history of Lohanas"(1993)by Dr. Katherine Prior,--given at the end of page 3
 * 3) ""The Oxford Histroy of India" by Vincent Smith,Oxford,--given at the end of page 12

Now,history is something that largely does not have concrete proof.Accuracy of the history is always gauged from the number historians agreeing upon a single theory.Whether "Dada Jasraj could not have killed Gengis Khan" or not ,cannot be evidently told.But, as you pointed out there appear two versions of the same legend in "Department of Sociology, Centre for the Study of Minorities and Social Change,University of Bristol" paper.Its not a discrepancy rather an effort to acknowledge every version out there about Dada Jasraj's death.Thus it is actually supporting my argument that "this is a legend" simply because there is no concrete evidence to support either version.This is particularly why I have said the issue may be resolved by saying "legend has it that Dada Jasraj killed Chengis Khan".The whole article does not need to be deleted.P.S:Let the admins decide whether helping a non-english speaker is a form of canvassing. Vivekananda De  --tAlK 17:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply : If Bhavinkundaliya can create several pages on English Wikipedia, he can as well defend his case. No one looks at grammar in AfD. Jethwarp (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is clearly a content dispute rather than an issue of article deletion, so should be discussed on the article talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject is notable. As suggested above, take the rest to the talk page. Stormbay (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment : None of the keep votes above mention anything about Reliable Sources and mentions why article should be kept as per Wiki policy. Please note that this is a debate for deletion and not for content dispute, it is about a content and claims in the article which has no reliable sources to back its content and a few sources which name Jashraj do not back the article content. Just a mention of name in some sources does not make any subject notable, it should be notable enough to have an impact in history or any field to have an article. There are hardly any third party reference to the subject. The only claim to fame is killing of Gengis Khan - which obviously is a fairy-tale. His time line of reign - death not defined by any source. How does then article satisfy Wiki guidelines. So if this sources are removed article becomes original research. No one is saying anything about creators comment, where he clearly says that on 29 Novemebr that [quote] Rana Jashra was a king of Lohar Gadha, who killed Genghis Khan(controversial). folk deity of Lohana,Bhanushali etc. castes of India. i creat on my user page to rewrite already a page as Dada Jasraj. but i am not satisfy with the article. need your help[un-quote]. Clearly indicating that he created article with his WP:POV with citations not adhering to WP:V and WP:RS.  I care least if the article is kept but it would be bad precedent as I feel article in its present form is not worthy of being kept on Wikipedia. Jethwarp (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be much easier to read your comment if you removed the underlining and bolding. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I am just student of wiki,i have start 8 pages, and first was edited by jethva, 2nd Dci help me and then every time i ask and he correct grammer. and i am weak in use of technic and i translate with any info with help of gujratilexicon dictonary.

about nanji kalidas mehta. he also other three booksandand. not only buisnessman but author,writer also. see my all pages which i have start i always prefer to provide academic sources. and i ask if lord rama was fact or meath but page belong to him as his history or story. so why in case of Jashraj any have objection?Bhavinkundaliya (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply : all 3 books are auto-biograpbhy 1. Smr̥ti ane saṃskr̥ti ( meaning my memoris ) 2. Mārā jīvananī anubhavakathā ( meaning experiences of my life ) 3. Yuropanā pravāsa ( my journey to Europe ) and Dreams Half expressed all are on his personal life. What I want emphasis is that he is not a HISTORIAN and not RS and being a Lohana not Third party source. He has just written folk-tale of Jashraj as is prevalent in your community without any research or claims to back his statements. He should have given a Photo of Tomb of Gengis Khan with inscription, which would have made his book instant hit!!! Jethwarp (talk) 05:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Is it time to close this argument, keep the article, and move this discussion to Talk:Rana Jashraj? This way, Bhavinkundaliya and Jethwarp can work out their disagreements there, with our help.   DCI  talk 00:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment and Reply : The closing Admin should also note that taking this article again to Talk page would build WP:DBTF. As whole article Rana Jashraj and old one - Dada Jasraj is like Building the Frankenstein for the following reasons:-

1. As one source says Jashraj killed gengis khan another says he could not have done so as he lived during 970-1000 - both sources are from their own Lohana community. so their own people accept and deny the story.

2. the same source again says grave of Gengis Khan lies near Multan with an inscription in Chinese that Rana of Mirana (Jashraj) killed him!!!! But Tomb of Genghis Khan is yet a subject of debate - and none of the historian mention such tomb existing in Multan. Neither do British who ruled for 250 years mention it in any of their Gazettes nor after independence even Government of Pakistan !!! Gengis Khan died in 1227 so Jashraj should have been alive in that time. And there are some editors who argue that the book citing this is a RS.!!!! Whereas I have clearly said Dreams Half expressed is autobiography and not 3rd party source as author is Lohana. The book is written in 1966, may be Nanji Kalidas Mehta was more knowledgeable than British rulers or Pakistan Government.

3. one source says Jashraj's timeline as 970 to 1000AD, 2nd says 1032 to 1048 and another says 13th century around 1205-1231. !!!! Alll three sources which differ on his time-line are surprisingly from their own community ( Lohana ) websites. So there is no consensus among their own version of story. None of them are third party sources or reliable sources.!!!

4. one source says Jashraj may have also killed Timur Lang !!! but again other sources laugh at this claim. Timur Lang died in 1405 so Jashraj should have been alive in 1405 to have killed him. However, most of historians claim that Timurlane died at Atrar (Otrar) on February 17, 1405 due to illness.

5. one source says Jashraj may have killed Sabuktigin father of Muhmad of Gazhni!!! while many other claim he died due to illness. again Sabuktigin lived during 942–997, so Jashraj should be alive during that time.

6. one source says Jashraj died on 22 January many centuries ago ( but surprisingly not the year of death ) !!! Further, discussions above point it that all this sources can not be termed reliable and there are no third party sources also.

Only thing one can say without any objection by any one is that Rana Jashraj or Dada Jashraj is name of clan-deity of Loshanas. The article is worth only this one line only, if it is to be kept.

So how is one going to deal with the article again on talk page.

I again therefore re-iterate that article is worth a delete as per Wiki policy on keeping the articles.

I would rather request the editors who have vote a keep to re-view their votes in view of my above comments. Thank you all!!! Jethwarp (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep and move to the talk page. I have refrained from giving an opinion until now, but, as I will be unavailable for further comments until January 1st (due to America's holiday season), I will say this.  The article's subject is notable, and there should be some form of an article on him.  With this in mind, we can have a conversation on the talk page that involves everything mentioned here.  I will be able to help with that discussion after the 1st.  Good luck and thanks for your contributions to the encyclopedia.   DCI  talk 01:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment : Again I would say none of the Keep / Strong Keep votes mention why article is a strong keep. No one has yet given reply to WP:DBTF arguments. Any keep arguments should adhere to policy. Jethwarp (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I will quote Wikipedia's deletion policy. "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."  As for the reasoning behind my "talk page discussion" ideas, I'll quote the page again: " Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Requests for comments for further input."  Though I see your point, I think we can approach this through one of these routes.  As I mentioned above, and as I told Bhavinkundaliya, I'll be gone until January 1st and didn't really expect to be commenting right now.  However, I'll return in a week or two to help.   DCI  talk 13:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Google book search gives only 3 results. 1. Dreams Half-expressed written by Nanji Kalidas Mehta, a member and prominent leader of Lohana clan. ( about which there is a lot of argument given why it is not a Reliable Source ). 2. Other two books a) Census of India, 1961: Volume 5 b) Fairs and Festivals of India: Chhattisgarh, Dadra and Nagar ... refer to Rana Jashraj, who built the hill on which Ambaji temple in Gujarat is located. So it is not about Lohana - Jashraj of Multan. Google search result for Dada Jashraj is again only one the controversial Dreams Half-expressed. So where are WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT sources ??? Article does not pass WP:V and WP:NPV. Further, I have already expressed concern that taking article to talk-page will build WP:DBTF Jethwarp (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * See here contributions of User:Bhavinkundaliya. He has been adding his POV ( Rana Jashraj and killing of Gengis Khan ) to all articles related like Lohana, History of Multan, Lahore Fort, some of which I have reverted. His major edits are on Lohana article and Lohana history. Does it not fall under WP:COI and WP:DISRUPTPOINT ??? Jethwarp (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2011 (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.