Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brahuistan (2nd nomination)

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. Once a valid Delete !vote has been entered, a Procedural/Speedy keep is generally no longer applicable. The nomination itself matters not a whit when other participants bring up valid arguments for deletion. Discarding those procedural keep !votes, we're left with a clear consensus to delete. Proposals for various ATDs did not receive much support, and were opposed by some. Owen× ☎ 18:13, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brahuistan

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Hello,

I would like to respectfully revisit concerns regarding the article Brahuistan, especially in light of the previous deletion discussion archived in May 2025. While the article was retained, many valid points were raised that remain unresolved and merit further review.

The term "Brahuistan" does not appear in any official historical, administrative, or ethnographic records. The Khanate of Kalat, whose ruling Ahmedzai dynasty spoke Brahui, never referred to any region as "Brahuistan." The territory was historically divided into Jhalawan and Sarawan, and the Khans consistently identified themselves as Baloch. In portraits and official documents, the word "Baloch" is part of their titles. No document from the Kalat archives mentions "Brahuistan" as a region or identity.

Even British colonial sources rejected the term. As cited in Fred Scholz’s *Nomadism and Colonialism: A Hundred Years of Baluchistan, 1872–1972* (Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 21), the British deliberately chose to name the region "Baluchistan" and not "Brahuiistan," despite the presence of Brahui-speaking tribes. Scholz writes:

> “When the British came to the southern region of the Brahui Confederacy, they called the newly conquered land not Brahuiistan, but 'Baluchistan.'”

Prominent nationalist figures such as Dr. Mehrang Baloch (Langove tribe, born in Manguchar) and Dr. Allah Nazar Baloch (Mohammad Hassani tribe, born in Awaran) are native Brahui speakers, yet they have always identified as Baloch and as part of Balochistan. Neither has ever referred to "Brahuistan" as a region or political concept. Their leadership in Baloch nationalist movements underscores the unity of Baloch identity across linguistic lines.

The article currently relies on sources that discuss the Brahui language or ethnolinguistic group, but none of these sources substantiate the existence of a region named "Brahuistan." Even the Pakistan census data cited refers to language demographics—not territorial divisions. The use of linguistic data to imply a geographic or national entity is a form of original research (WP:NOR) and may mislead readers.

As noted by multiple editors in the previous AfD, including Clarityfiend and Moshtank, the article may be WP:TOOSOON for a standalone entry. A more appropriate approach might be to merge relevant content into the article on Brahui people, where linguistic and cultural details can be contextualized without promoting a speculative or politically charged narrative.

I invite editors to reconsider the article’s framing and sourcing, and to assess whether it meets Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability, neutrality, and notability.

--Moshtank (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I haven't closely analyzed the article myself. After a clear "keep" result in the previous AfD in May, nominator has started a thread at WP:AN with the same text as above, and tried to add walls of text to the previous AfD after the close. If we get another "keep" result here, at what point will enough be enough? --Finngall ^talk 16:40, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Geography, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:47, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep – Nominated once again by Moshtank, even with strong rejection to delete in the previous AfD. Clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Svartner (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Svartner, please see the AN thread. I don't at all think that a procedural keep is appropriate here, though I'm not particularly happy to see this back at AfD by the same proposer, either. -- asilvering (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no reliable sources for Brahuistan published in the last century, as opposed to the Brahui language or Brahui people. The last AfD was infested by people saying "speedy keep" without specifying how this applies. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article doesn't seem to contain any evidence that "Brahuistan" is in any way a generally accepted term. I'm perplexed by the previous discussion, which looks like there has been some kind of co-ordinated effort to retain the article, although I have difficulty imagining why or how. Dionysodorus (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be two separate issues being discussed here. One is whether this article should be deleted, about which I have expressed my view above. The other is whether the OP was right to post a rationale obviously generated by an LLM here, and similar walls of text elsewhere, about which I express no view here, and hope that others keep comments about behaviour on boards dedicated to that. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Tentative~~ delete. The sources in the article that I have been able to verify discuss the Brahui people, but not "Brahuistan" as a concept or entity. The only source I have found that mentions the -stan is [1], which is not an unbiased, reliable source I fear. I think the 1st AFD discussion was defective since those arguing Keep there did not address this distinction, and Moshtank's points were essentially just...ignored. I've labelled my !vote as tentative, since it is possible some of the offline (book) sources might deal with "Brahuistan" as an entity adequately to meet our notability requirements; I would invite someone to credibly assert that if that is the case. Otherwise, my suspicion is that this may be a biased, nationalistic concept that exists in a small number of nationalistic sources, and possibly some brief passing mentions in old historical literature - not enough to support an article. Martinp (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the considered remarks. I would like to respectfully add that the concept of "Brahuistan" is not only poorly sourced, but also lacks acceptance among Brahui-speaking communities themselves. Notably, respected Brahui historians such as Dr. Farooq Baloch have never referred to any region or political entity by that name in their academic work or public commentary. The term does not appear in Brahui oral traditions, folk literature, or cultural expressions.

Even prominent nationalist figures who are native Brahui speakers—such as Dr. Mehrang Baloch and Dr. Allah Nazar Baloch—have consistently identified with Balochistan, not "Brahuistan." Widely known Brahui folk songs like *Danah pa dana* refer to the homeland as Balochistan, further underscoring the absence of this term in cultural memory.

This suggests that "Brahuistan" is not just underrepresented in reliable sources—it is actively absent from the historical, cultural, and scholarly vocabulary of the people it purports to describe. Unless independent, verifiable sources can demonstrate that the term is recognized beyond isolated political texts, I believe the article does not meet the threshold for notability.

-- Moshtank (talk) 08:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It being a week later, for the benefit of the closer, I have struck through the "tentative" part of my !vote above. A huge number of words have been written in this deletion discussion (and its predecessors). The fact remains no-one seems to have found reliable sources to write an article about Brahuistan as a concept, the sources located continuing to be only a) about the Brahui people or language, b) passing mentions musing about why a different name than "Brahuistan" gained currency, c) perhams a few nationalistic(?), well-intentioned but biased/aspirational sources. Martinp (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. This may well be a case where the article should be deleted. But this nomination is fruit of the poisonous tree. It should be closed without prejudice to another editor renominating it if it is indeed deletion-worthy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Bushranger, if that refers to the nomination being LLM-assisted, our policy on this dates back to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_199#LLM/chatbot_comments_in_discussions. Moshtank's likely use of AI to restate points they made at AFD#1 (without AI) seems directly covered by the part of the close summary that says an LLM prohibition does not apply to comments where the reasoning is the editor's own, but an LLM has been used to refine their meaning. Editors who are non-fluent speakers, or have developmental or learning disabilities, are welcome to edit here as long as they can follow our policies and guidelines; this consensus should not be taken to deny them the option of using assistive technologies to improve their comments. If you're concerned that Moshtank first needlessly brought this to a wrong venue, and blundered about adding comments to a closed AFD as well, I prefer to AGF that they were a bit lost how to proceed, especially since the same arguments they made previously were just not engaged with. As far as other editors renominating, I was contemplating doing so myself if Moshtank had not, and in view of two other delete !votes above, I think forcing one of us to renominate, with the arguments already made, would be needless bureaucracy. Martinp (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct—I used an LLM to help with phrasing because my English isn't strong, and I wanted to avoid posting something unclear or confusing. The reasoning and sources are entirely my own.

-- Moshtank (talk) 09:05, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If your English isn't good enough to phrase a reason to delete an article, I doubt it is good enough to assess whether the article should be deleted in the first place. Cortador (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this is a second nomination, but I believe it's justified. The previous AfD did not fully address key concerns about sourcing and notability. This nomination presents clearer evidence and framing, and aims to invite a more thorough review based on policy—not personal preference.

-- Moshtank (talk) 09:02, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on following procedural lapses

a) @Moshtank need to take note that there is some thing called WP:AFDBEFORE

b) Article is just a year old and ideally creator @User:Sutyarashi is an active editor, hence should have been invited at Talk:Brahuistan and discussed the concerns.

c) As per WP:AFDBEFORE Before starting AFD other options like Draftify, merge etc need to be discussed at the article talk page.

d) WP:BEFORE B5) expects "Check to see if enough time has passed since previous nominations before renominating."

e) When you are renominating so soon ideally previous AFD participants need to be invited for renewed AFD, This time I will ping below but next times OP need to remember this point. :@Clarityfiend, Abstrakt, Ngrewal1, Unclasp4940, and Athoremmes:

Bookku (talk) 06:16, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the procedural reminders. I acknowledge that I should have initiated discussion on the article's talk page first. My intent was to revisit unresolved sourcing concerns, and I’ll keep these steps in mind going forward.

-- Moshtank (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, improve and then merge:

I came across at least two (following) WP:RS, one contemporary and one very old in my brief research. The common thread is, both following authors, though do not call it Brahuistan, same time they seem to wonder why nomenclature Brahuistan was not used?

So ideally, since WP:RS discussion on naming is available it can be discussed either in the articles Balochistan or History of Balochistan. Before that let us draftify and then merge after necessary corrections.

Similar i.e. "merge" suggestion was also given in previous AFD by User:Clarityfiend

Keane, Augustus Henry. Asia...: By A. H. Keane. United Kingdom, E. Stanford, 1896.

Zeb, Rizwan. Ethno-political Conflict in Pakistan: The Baloch Movement. United Kingdom, Taylor & Francis, 2019.

Bookku (talk) 06:36, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather concerned about how much opprobrium Moshtank has attracted. A fairly new editor, who probably doesn't have English as a first language, seems to have seen an article on a place that only exists in the minds of a few extreme nationalists, been surprised that it wasn't deleted and then resorted to not following Wikipedia processes perfectly. Much more of the blame should go to the editors who said "speedy keep" in the first discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:41, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you shall find so many new users I have gone out of the way to guide them. Here also purpose is to make them aware for next time, so they may continue more systematically next time and purpose is certainly not opprobrium at least on my part.

True that many users may not be spending adequate time to dig in details at AfDs. But unfortunately that happens good number of WP places. IMO Best care for every OP of every AfD is to follow WP:AFDBEFORE, is analyze each sources one by one in systematic manner on the article talk page before AfD is started. That can help saves everyone's time including OPs. Bookku (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding these sources. However, they are just passing mentions, not enough for an article on "Brahuistan". The word "Brahuistan" appears once in each book. In Keane (a 130 year old classic), "In Baluchistan the ruling race are not the Baluchis, but the Brahuis, who are moreover both the aboriginal and the most numerous element. Hence the term Baluchistan, unknown in the country itself, is altogether inappropriate, though it may now be too late to substitute the expression Brahuistan, as some geographers have proposed." In Zeb, "Who called it Balochistan first is also not clear. One view is that it was the British who called it Balochistan when they took control of it. What is not clear is why the British called it Balochistan and not Brahuistan after the Brahuis of Kalat." While I !voted delete and think that is the simplest acceptable outcome for this page, I'd be OK with a redirect to History of Baluchistan, which would incidentally leave the current text in history and editors could decide to reuse it elsewhere, subject to not giving this detail of nomenclature undue weight. That would be simpler than your proposal of draftifying and later merging, provided there is consensus that an independent page is not appropriate. Martinp (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be averse to having a redirect to a historical article, if there is a reliably sourced mention of Brahuistan there, but what I am averse to is the current article, which claims that this is an existing place, which it is not. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello users, @Bookku, @Phil Bridger and @Martinp. I apologize for joining the Talk late.

I need to clarify some things. In one of the books of the British English, it says regarding the name Balochistan: The ruling race of the region is the Brahuis, but the region is not called Brahuistan, but Balochistan.

Here the author is surprised and asked this question himself, but these authors compare the two words Balochistan and Brahuistan with each other and point out why the word Brahuistan (for the entire region of present-day Balochistan) is not popular instead of the word Balochistan, but this is while this article mentions that the name Brahuistan exists and includes the regions of Kalat and Khuzdar, which are separate from Balochistan. In my opinion, these two issues are different.

It is wrong that the British first called the region Balochistan after taking control. The idea of Balochistan is one of the successes of Mir Nasir Khan. For the first time, Mir Nasir Khan, who was one of the great Brahui rulers, called the region under his rule Baluchistan and united the Baloch tribes to establish the Baloch tribes a nation.

The idea of one Baluch community in a politically unified Baluchistan may have originated in Naṣīr Khan’s successes in the 12th/18th century. His successors were unable to maintain control of the part of the area he claimed to rule as khan, let alone continue to pursue what appear to have been his ambitions to incorporate all the Baluch into one nation
— Encyclopedia Iranica^[1]

It is unclear when the name Baluchistan came into general use. It may date only from the 12th/18th century when Naṣīr Khan I of Kalat during his long reign in the second half of the 12th/18th century became the first indigenous ruler to establish autonomous control over a large part of the area.
— Encyclopedia Iranica^[2]

The uplands and the lowlands continued to have distinct political histories, though the success of Naṣīr Khan I in the second half of the 12th/18th century integrated them to some extent for the duration of his reign. From this period onward the history of the area has been seen in relatively exclusive terms as the history of Baluchistan (though its exact boundaries were often vague).
— Encyclopedia Iranica^[3]

If we want another source about what the name of the region was at that time; we can look at the book Jangʹnāmah-i Tuḥfat al-naṣīr from the 18th century. On this page, Mir Nasir Khan calls himself Khan of Baloch and the ruler of Balochistan.^[4]

This is not the place to discuss the race of the Brahuis, but the issue of their being separate from the Baloch was raised during the British era and has few supporters among the Brahuis themselves, because they believe that they are a tribe of the Baloch tribes and differ only in language. It seems that the Brahuis separated from the rest of the Baloch tribes when they went to Kalat to take over the rule from the Hindu Sewa dynasty. After taking over the rule from the Sewa dynasty, their Dravidian language seems to have dominated this Baloch group. Genetic results also confirm the genetic similarity of the Baloch and Brahuis.

All local traditions assert that the former rulers of Kalat were Sewa Hindus, who were connected with the Rai Dynasty of Sindh. The Chief of the Mirwari tribe of Balochistan, Mir Umar Mirwari, ousted the Hindu Sewa Rulers in the 15th century and established the first Baloch rule over Kalat and the surrounding areas. they used to live at Surab (Kalat) and extended their power after winning wars with Jat tribes.
They were later conquered by the Mughals, but one of their chiefs, Mir Ahmad Qambrani, regained Kalat from the Mughal Governor. In 1666 AD, Mir Ahmad Khan Qambrani was elected as ruler and designated as Khan; he changed his royal name from Qambrani to Ahmadzai, and thus, the later branch of Brahvi rulers emerged as Ahmadzais.
— ^[5]^[6]

I apologize for talking too much. Thank you. Ozeyr (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, the Khanate of Kalat—whose rulers were Brahui-speaking—consistently referred to their territory as Balochistan and identified themselves as Baloch. Even prominent figures like Noori Naseer Khan, one of the most powerful Khans of Kalat, famously stated: "Wherever there is a Baloch, that is Balochistan." This reflects a broader understanding that Brahui speakers were considered part of the Baloch identity, not a separate ethnic group.

The term "Brahuistan" appears to have been a speculative suggestion by a few geographers, but it was never adopted by the people themselves, nor by the Khans or colonial administrators. Given its lack of historical, cultural, and popular usage, it may not be appropriate even for inclusion in broader articles like Balochistan, as it risks presenting a fringe idea as notable. A single mention or proposal does not establish notability or recognition.

-- Moshtank (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. Personally, I don't believe the topic meets the threshold for inclusion even as merged content. Introducing a term that lacks cultural and scholarly recognition into broader articles may risk misleading readers. A clean removal seems more appropriate in this case.

-- Moshtank (talk) 09:12, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ – The term "Brahuistan" is not supported by any reliable academic or historical sources. The region historically referred to as Turan, which includes Kalat and Khuzdar, has always been part of Balochistan. The Khanate of Kalat emerged from the Brahui Confederacy, itself a Baloch tribal union. The Khans of Kalat officially used the title "Khan of Baloch," and the name "Balochistan" entered formal usage during the reign of Mir Nasir Khan. Promoting the term "Brahuistan" misrepresents the historical and ethnic context of the region. Sources such as Dashti (2012) and Breseeg (2004) confirm this. Moshtank (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- I've been seeing the Brahuistan article for a few days now, and yesterday I posted some academic texts in the Talk of the Brahuistan article. As I wrote there, the name Brahuistan does not appear in any academic source and is not the name of any geographical region. The old name of this region was Turan, which today includes the regions of Kalat and Khuzdar and is part of Balochistan.

The vast territory of greater Baluchistan has been divided historically into a number of areas, among which Makrān (in the south), Sarḥadd (in the northwest), and the area known earlier as Tūrān that includes the modern towns of Kalat and Khuzdar (Qoṣdār/Qozdār; in the east), have been the most significant.
— ^[7]

If you refer to Talk:Brahuistan, you will see that Mir Nasir Khan Baloch, one of the rulers of the Kalat Khanate, popularized the name Balochistan as a geographical region. I have made many quotes from Encyclopedia Iranica.

It is unclear when the name Baluchistan came into general use. It may date only from the 12th/18th century when Naṣīr Khan I of Kalat during his long reign in the second half of the 12th/18th century became the first indigenous ruler to establish autonomous control over a large part of the area.
— ^[8]

The uplands and the lowlands continued to have distinct political histories, though the success of Naṣīr Khan I in the second half of the 12th/18th century integrated them to some extent for the duration of his reign. From this period onward the history of the area has been seen in relatively exclusive terms as the history of Baluchistan (though its exact boundaries were often vague).
— ^[9]

Ozeyr (talk) 05:08, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for review and comments

-- Moshtank (talk) 06:55, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

Draftify and reword. The last print (15th) edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica handled this by having two articles - one labelled "Brahui", of medium length, and the other is a shorter "Brahui language", and I would suggest that we end up in that same place. The first article starts "Brahui, tribal confederacy of Baluchistan, in Pakistan. Its members are mostly nomadic herdsmen....." and it is fairly similar to the second paragraph of the article in question. So there is a value in preserving at least some of the article's contents. The "stan" aspect is not mentioned in EB, and knowing EB this would have been described if it was a realistic plan. Instead the EB article basically says the confederacy reached its zenith in the 18th century under Nasir Khan (who doesn't have an article but is mentioned in Battle of Khyber Pass (1738). This is quite similar to the position laid out above by Martinp. So the current article as a "stan" fails WP:V but the confederacy more generally has notability and sourcing. So it's an article that needs improvement. ChrysGalley (talk) 12:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We already have the articles Brahui people and Brahui language. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was unclear there: I would suggest we have "Brahui" - which is confederacy plus people, as one article with possibly a passing reference to the stan proposal, and a second article on the language (no issue on that I think). The problem with "Brahui people" as a title is that it diminishes the confederacy somewhat, and which I think is entitled to an article, but not as a stan. ChrysGalley (talk) 12:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrysGalley The Brahui Confederacy has an article called Khanate of Kalat, which describes all the details of the confederacy, and the article Khanate of Kalat itself refers to Only the «Brahui Confederacy».

The article Brahuiistan, which has the suffix stan , creates many ambiguities and misunderstandings and it is better to delete it.

This article Brahuistan does not discuss the Brahui confederacy at all, but rather names several regions of Balochistan as Brahuistan.

We did not have any region named Brahuistan in the past. Ozeyr (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ozeyr I fully support your assessment.

The *Khanate of Kalat* article already provides a detailed and well-sourced account of the Brahui Confederacy, which is historically recognized as a tribal union in Balochistan. It accurately reflects the political and social structure of the Brahui-speaking tribes.

In contrast, the *Brahuistan* article introduces confusion by naming several regions of Balochistan as "Brahuistan" without historical evidence or reliable sources. As you rightly pointed out, there has never been a region officially or historically known by that name. The use of the "-stan" suffix implies a territorial or national entity, which misrepresents the nature of the Brahui Confederacy.

For clarity and accuracy, I fully agree that the *Brahuistan* article should be deleted, and the focus should remain on the *Khanate of Kalat* and the Brahui people and language as distinct, well-sourced topics.

-- Moshtank (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to note that the Baloch historically formed multiple tribal confederacies, among which the Brahui Confederacy is considered the most prominent and well-known. Individuals belonging to the tribes within this confederacy are sometimes collectively referred to as the Brahui people, primarily due to their linguistic and political association.

Other notable Baloch confederacies include the Dodai, Rigi, and Rakhshani confederacies, among others. Each of these played a significant role in the sociopolitical landscape of Balochistan.

Given their historical relevance, it may be worthwhile to consider creating a dedicated article on Baloch tribal confederacies, or alternatively, separate articles for each major confederacy to better reflect their distinct identities and contributions.

-- Moshtank (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks @Ozeyr - I certainly agree the "stan" aspect is simply wrong and should go from mainspace except (possibly) as the most passing of references deep into a better article, using the Scholz reference, which seems to be RS (I can access that book if needed). I don't even think there should be a redirect with Stan in it. The Khanate of Kalat is a much broader piece, of which the confederacy is a part, and EB also has a separate article on that too, so that's good. The current article does refer to the confederacy in paragraph 2. It's probably a case of trying to work out a good consensus here. So one set of options would be to keep the language article and the Khanate article, I don't think there is any dispute on that. Then in my view have a Bahui article with 2 subsections, one of the confederacy - since there is reasonable RS on that via EB and elsewhere; and one on the demographic aspects of the tribes people (currently the focus of the Bahui People article). But there may be better solutions?

Oh sorry,@ChrysGalley, I just saw your comment by chance;You didn't sign it. Thanks for your comment and attention. I read the first revision of the article and considering the source «The Rise Of A Brahui Consciousness», I think the initial revisions of the article were made for political purposes and to promote a concept that is not accepted in society.

Dear friend, the Brahui Confederacy is today synonymous with the Khanate of Kalat, and the Khanate of Kalat was founded by the Brahuis in 1666 and its rulers are also Brahuis. This article (Brahuistan) in the second paragraph that you said wanted to mention the Khanate of Kalat, which is also called the Brahui Confederacy.

Historically Brahuis were pastoralists primarily confined to the Central Brahui Range; in the 17th century various Brahui tribes were unified by the Brahui Ahmedzai dynasty which led to the creation of Khanate of Kalat, also known as the "Brahui Confederacy".[3] At its greatest extent in the 18th century, the Brahui Confederacy controlled the wider Balochistan region
— In article Brahuistan

All of these things mentioned in the paragraph above; have been used in the Khanate of Kalat article. If we create another article, the topic will be duplicated and will be merged by Wikipedia users into the Khanate of Kalat article.

So, we have no disagreement about keeping the article on the Khanate and the language, but the discussion is on this paragraph. By the way, you oppose the suffix "stan" in Brahuistan, right?

These 2 subsections that you mentioned, including: Confederacy (in the history section) and demographic aspects (in the Geographic distribution or demographic section), can be placed in the article on the Brahui people; because the articles confuse most readers. For example, see the article of the Armenian people.

The EI also mentions the Confederacy in the history section. What is your opinion?Ozeyr (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply @Ozeyr and my apologies for omitting the signature, unfortunately I am in the habit of doing that! I am conscious that this is just overloading an AfD with a lot of content discussion, which actually isn't encouraged, we are supposed to focus on the AfD. The poor Closing administrator has rather a lot to wade through. But yes, there is no dispute on the Stan issue, I assume good faith rather than a political motive, but it's difficult to justify as a title, and you could well be correct. On the Khan versus the confederacy - I'd have to go to the main British Library to check the India Office book collection, but Encyclopedia Britannica makes a distinction between the khanate and the confederacy - the khanate was a quite specific cohort drawn from the confederacy and based in Kalat , but not necessarily vice versa - there were members of the confederacy not the in the Khanate. Doubtless this varied according to the khanate's mixed battlefield successes. Is this an important distinction? I actually don't know. ChrysGalley (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; Your signature is interesting @ChrysGalley. In my opinion, we have to check and consider all details and all aspect; That's why we have to check everything. Thank you; So the Stan issue is resolved, but how complicated you made the Khanate and Confederacy issue; I'm really a bit confused. I searched the Encyclopedia Britannica and found two articles about the Brahuis, one on the language and one on the people. The Encyclopedia Britannica mentions the tribal confederacy in the article on the Brahui people and uses the title of the tribal confederacy of Balochistan.(Brahui people: Brahui, tribal confederacy of Balochistān, in western Pakistan.)

I need to say something about Brahui.

In general, Brahui means a tribal confederation of several Baloch tribes and the reason for their separation from other Baloch is only the Dravidian Brahui language, which is probably a language change through the Hindu Sewa dynasty that once ruled of Kalat.

the Brahui speakers are genetically similar to their Balochi-speaking neighbors” This is accurate.The Brahui language, based on linguistic data, very likely diverged from other Dravidian languages ca. 1000 CE or later. As the relevant Wikipedia page explains: “it has been argued that the absence of any Old Iranian (Avestan) loanwords in Brahui suggests that the Brahui language migrated to Balochistan from central India less than 1,000 years ago.

Because Brahui folklore states that they and other Baloch took over Kalat from the Indian Sewa dynasty in the 14th or 15th century. But the genetic similarity of Brahui with other Baloch shows that they lost the Baloch language after the conquest of Kalat under the influence of the Sewa dynasty. See this academic reference(Page:199, 200)

Could you research something I say below when you go to the India Office collection at the British Main Library?

Look at these maps, what would catch your attention that doesn't exist today?1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to solicit more views about suggestions from ChrysGalley and from Bookku to draftify, split, move and/or merge to align with sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:49, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Strong Support

As a member of the Brahui-speaking community, I would like to emphasize that our ethnic identity is Baloch. We speak the Brahui language, which has Dravidian linguistic roots, but this does not imply a separate racial or national identity. The historical and political reasons behind the presence of a Dravidian language in Balochistan are complex and not relevant to this deletion discussion.

The term "Brahuistan" has never been used historically or officially to refer to any region. Its appearance in this article is misleading and risks distorting the unity of the Baloch people. Prominent figures in Baloch nationalism—such as Dr. Mahrang Baloch, Gulzadi Baloch, Dr. Allah Nazar Baloch, Dr. Farooq Baloch, Gul Khan Naseer, and the rulers of the Khanate of Kalat—are all Brahui-speaking individuals who proudly identify as Baloch.

The notion of "Brahuistan" is largely a product of online discourse, often used to create division or undermine the influence of respected figures like Dr. Mahrang Baloch, who is sometimes misrepresented as "Mahrang Langove" to diminish his Baloch identity.

A passing mention in a single book about a proposal to rename Balochistan as "Brahuistan" does not warrant a standalone article. Such content can easily be misused or misunderstood, and many Brahui-speaking people are deeply concerned about the implications.

For the sake of accuracy, unity, and social responsibility, I strongly support the deletion of this article.

-- Moshtank (talk) 11:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment – Strong support for deletion

Thank you to all contributors for the thoughtful discussion. I believe the consensus is now clear: the term "Brahuistan" lacks historical grounding, is not supported by reliable sources, and risks misrepresenting the identity and unity of the Brahui-speaking Baloch community.

As discussed above, the article duplicates content already covered in *Brahui people*, *Brahui language*, and *Khanate of Kalat*. Its title promotes a fabricated territorial concept that is not accepted in society and has been used in online spaces to create confusion or division.

I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my position, and I’m grateful to those who defended the use of LLMs for accessibility and clarity. For the sake of neutrality, accuracy, and social responsibility, I strongly reaffirm my support for deletion.

Thank you again to everyone involved.

-- Moshtank (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Balash-Vologases, @SultanOfRedistan12, @Mogoera, @Mogoeilor, @Hooth, @Khalidmengal, @Pajjar, @Karim Jan, @Quebec99, @फ़िलप्रो, @Balo Baloch

Please leave comment

-- Moshtank (talk) 09:01, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you ping me? — Sultan of Redistan (talk · contribs) 10:41, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Dear colleagues,

I extend my respectful greetings to all participants in this discussion. I have joined at the invitation of one of my former students, @Moshtank, who has raised a thoughtful concern regarding the article titled Brahuistan.

Having reviewed the matter, I must respectfully express my firm opposition to the continued existence of this article under its current title. As my student has already articulated, the term Brahuistan lacks historical grounding and appears to be politically constructed. It is not supported by credible academic sources and risks promoting division within communities that share deep cultural and linguistic ties.

From an academic standpoint, Wikipedia should not serve as a platform for speculative or politically motivated terminology—especially when such terms have no verifiable basis and may be perceived as provocative or harmful. The title in question seems engineered rather than organically derived from historical or ethnographic records.

I therefore strongly support the deletion of this article.

Thank you for your attention and for maintaining the integrity of this platform.

Sultanselim baloch (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

This is a very poorly-sourced article; only 3 of the sources even mention the word Brahuistan, and even then it's only mentioned briefly. This supposed region is not even mentioned, let alone acknowledged, in most reliable acadæmic sources about the Brahui people or Balochistan.

This is not a proposed province or state like Saraikistan. If it was about such, then perhaps it would be a notable subject.

However, I would also like to point out that the agenda behind this nomination is very clearly Baloch nationalist and does not belong on Wikipedia.

— Sultan of Redistan (talk · contribs) 15:05, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now Then we can look at possible appropriate merger. Article title can even be changed to be more Neutral if needed. Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Servite et contribuere Thank you for sharing your perspective.

May I kindly ask what specific reasons lead you to support keeping the article? Do you have any reliable sources that support the existence or historical relevance of the term "Brahuistan"? As discussed earlier, several contributors have pointed out that the term lacks historical grounding and may cause confusion or misrepresentation.

It would be helpful to understand the basis of your suggestion, especially if there are sources that justify keeping or modifying the article. Thanks again for engaging in the discussion.

-- Moshtank (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moshtank It was just keep for now. My argument is we should just delay deletion. And maybe look at changing the article title instead, and then maybe merging the content as an alternative to deletion. The current article title might be misleading for sure, but I am open to a merge of content aswell with another article, but I would prefer an actual cleanup and WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. So I am arguing basically, keep for now, and reform article, like change article title, and if the current article title is so bad, then a redirect doesn't have to be left when changing article title. Servite et contribuere (talk) 06:55, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Servite et contribuere Thank you for your response. I would like to clarify that I am fundamentally opposed to the existence of an article titled Brahuistan. In my view, the term lacks historical credibility and appears to be politically engineered to create division within the Balochi and Brahui communities.

As someone from the Brahui-speaking community, I find the title misleading and potentially harmful. It does not reflect any documented region or recognized historical entity. If the intention is to explore historical regions such as Turan, Makran, or Sistan, I would welcome that, as these are well-attested in historical sources.

However, the term Brahuistan seems entirely fabricated and divisive. If the goal is to improve Wikipedia with accurate and well-sourced content, then articles based on unverifiable or politically motivated terminology should not be maintained.

If your suggestion is to rename or merge the article into something historically grounded, such as Brahui Confederacy (which I have already created), I am open to that. But keeping the current article under the name Brahuistan is not appropriate, and I strongly oppose it.

If Wikipedia allows articles based on propaganda or unsourced claims, then I believe the community and administrators should clarify that policy.

@28bytes, @Amire80, @Curbon7, @Daniel Quinlan, @Dennis Brown, @Ealdgyth, @Finlay McWalter, @Gonzo fan2007, @Kaiser Matthias,

Thank you again for engaging in this discussion.

@Jolielover, @AbhinavAnkur, @Zaptain United

-- Moshtank (talk) 09:32, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You pinged me, but I don't believe I've contributed to this discussion? jolielover♥talk 09:34, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as requested (!voted Delete above). We already have decent articles on Brahui people and Brahui language. This article (Brahuistan) has different sentences, but its meaningful content and sources appear to be largely included in those other 2 articles already (I haven't done a concordance sentence by sentence or source by source, but I've looked for the main ideas and main book sources). So, having established that a standalone article about Brahuistan seems not appropriate, I don't see huge value in keeping the text around in draft space or in history. I'm not opposed to redirecting to Brahui people with a redirect left in place, I just think it's rather pointless if the goal is preserving content for reuse, and equally pointless to genuinely aid search since it's an unlikely search term vs just Brahui. Martinp (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My view, having !voted to delete above, is also that there is no case for doing anything other than deleting here. If the concept of Brahuistan isn't generally accepted and can't be reliably sourced, it should be deleted: it shouldn't be left hanging around as a draft, redirect, or in merged content. Dionysodorus (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize Dionysodorus. I formatted another comment and didn't realize you had already voted.
Delete, this adds nothing to Brahui people, and the sourcing is entirely inadequate. Worse, it carries a non-neutral (political) message, that there *ought* to be a place called Brahuistan, even though there isn't. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep. If a nominator can't be bothered to themselves spell out why an article should be deleted, the AfD should just be closed immediately. Keep LLM slop away from Wikipedia. Cortador (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cortador How? The nominator has explained several times. It seems that the nominator WP:PING doesn't know, otherwise he has spoken several times.

@Moshtank Please look. Ozeyr (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above in my reply to Bushranger (not meant as a snark: there are lots of words here), the nom's LLM use is explicitly permitted in this instance by policy. Martinp (talk) 09:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are limits. Once LLMs cross into disruptive editing, any patience we have should rapidly dwindle. These are profoundly generated sections, almost certainly entirely generated by LLM, not LLM used to clean up weaknesses in English fluency. That old consensus isn't intended for LLM sections for instances when it appears the text was entirely written by LLM. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cortador Thank you for your comment.

I understand your concern, and I’d like to clarify that I followed Wikipedia’s policies and used an LLM to help express my thoughts more clearly, as my English is limited and I struggled to communicate my position effectively in previous AfD discussions. In fact, the lack of clarity in my earlier comments may have contributed to the article surviving the previous AfD.

However, the use of an LLM to assist with language should not disqualify valid concerns—especially when the article in question lacks reliable sources and presents a fabricated concept. The procedural issue you raised should not override the substantive problems with the article itself.

Above, I and several other editors have already explained in detail why the article should be deleted. If you believe there are valid reasons to keep it, I respectfully invite you to share them clearly and with sources, rather than posting vague or dismissive remarks.

Thank you again for engaging in the discussion.

-- Moshtank (talk) 11:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cortador , @Ozeyr, @Martinp, @Servite et contribuere Please review again I added more conversation

-- Moshtank (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment(!voted Delete above) -- I think I talked too much above. In total, there are two articles about the Brahuis (Brahui people and Brahui language) and another article about the Brahui Confederacy of the Khanate of Kalat. The independent article Brahuistan indicates a geographical region, but this does not exist. In history, the name of this region was Turan, but the article states that Brahuistan is a region in central Balochistan and Afghanistan, and includes Kalat and Khuzdar, but such a region does not exist. There is an article about the Brahui Confederacy called the Khanate of Kalat.

When I checked the history of the article, I noticed that in the revision sources, a source called «The Rise Of A Brahui Consciousness» was used, and probably the original article was pursuing a political goal. I think Wikipedia was used to promote this name because the concept of Brahuistan is not accepted in society.Ozeyr (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was pinged in this discussion, for reasons that are unclear (I neither edit nor use admin tools in this topic area), but out of courtesy I read the discussion. Having been summoned to this AfD I don't feel it would be appropriate to !vote on it, but it is very concerning to me that editors are considering "procedurally keep"ing an article that may be unsuitable for the encyclopedia because of the missteps of the nominator. If reliable sources don't support the existence of the article, it should be deleted, and if an editor is making procedural errors in an effort to get such an article deleted, they should be coached, but those really should be separate issues, and if no one can offer a "non-procedural" keep with a sound rationale, we should not be keeping the article. 28bytes (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear 28bytes,

Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I tagged you out of genuine concern—to better understand whether Wikipedia allows articles lacking reliable sources and potentially propagandistic framing. I appreciate your clarity and apologize if the tagging felt excessive.

Respectfully,

-- Moshtank (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that the historical backing for this being a distinct area under this name is lacking. However, even ignoring the LLM use (I believe that these LLM sections appear to be *entirely* written by LLM, not just used to clean things up) I do think that the contributions of Moshtank and the teacher/instructor that was canvassed ought to be stricken. This is a social group that is found mostly in modern day Pakistan: Balochistan is the largest province of Pakistan, Kalat and Khuzdar are in Pakistan. Neither of those editors are extended-confirmed as required under WP:CT/SA. Moshtank was already given the required contentious topic warning by asilvering two weeks ago and their bludgeoning has been disruptive in this AFD. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear CoffeeCrumbs,

Thank you for your comment. I understand the concerns raised, but I have shared my own views based on sources and personal experience. I used language tools only to express myself more clearly, not to generate opinions. I respect Wikipedia’s policies and will follow all guidelines, including those related to topic restrictions.

Respectfully,

-- Moshtank (talk) 05:20, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you haven't, though. Are you going to stay out of this topic until you have extended-confirmed rights? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moshtank, I have defended you as much as possible in this AfD discussion, but, as CoffeeCrumbs wrote, there are limits. Please don't write any more here. I am worried that this article may end up being kept if you, or people you know, continue to post LLM output. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I don't have feelings either way. Seems like the subject is covered pretty well elsewhere... Quebec99 (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ozeyr and Martinp, salvageable content should instead be merged with any of Brahui language, Brahui people, History of Balochistan, or Turan (Baluchistan). While the name isn't entirely unsourced it appears to have been a neologism based on Balochistan and Brahui people. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 01:19, 10 October 2025 (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.

[1] ttps://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/baluchistan-i/#:~:text=The%20idea%20of,into%20one%20nation.

[2] ttps://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/baluchistan-i/#:~:text=It%20is%20unclear%20when%20the%20name%20Baluchistan%20came%20into%20general%20use.%20It%20may%20date%20only%20from%20the%2012th/18th%20century%20when%20Na%E1%B9%A3%C4%ABr%20Khan%20I%20of%20Kalat%20during%20his%20long%20reign%20in%20the%20second%20half%20of%20the%2012th/18th%20century%20became%20the%20first%20indigenous%20ruler%20to%20establish%20autonomous%20control%20over%20a%20large%20part%20of%20the%20area.

[3] ttps://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/baluchistan-i/#:~:text=The%20uplands%20and,were%20often%20vague).

[4] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=-XwaAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%D8%AD%D8%A7%DA%A9%D9%85+%D8%A8%D9%84%D9%88%DA%86%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%A7%D9%86

[5] ttps://pakistanalmanac.com/balochistan-history/

[6] Khan, Sabir Badal (2013). Two Essays on Baloch History and Folklore: Two Essays on Baloch History and Folklore. Università di Napoli, "l'Orientale". p. 68.

[7] ttps://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/baluchistan-i/#:~:text=The%20vast%20territory,the%20most%20significant.

[8] ttps://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/baluchistan-i/#:~:text=It%20is%20unclear%20when%20the%20name%20Baluchistan%20came%20into%20general%20use.%20It%20may%20date%20only%20from%20the%2012th/18th%20century%20when%20Na%E1%B9%A3%C4%ABr%20Khan%20I%20of%20Kalat%20during%20his%20long%20reign%20in%20the%20second%20half%20of%20the%2012th/18th%20century%20became%20the%20first%20indigenous%20ruler%20to%20establish%20autonomous%20control%20over%20a%20large%20part%20of%20the%20area.

[9] ttps://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/baluchistan-i/#:~:text=The%20uplands%20and,were%20often%20vague).

[1]