"

First of all, let me answer your tag, that is removed by me.

WP:Policy

Fairness of tone
If we're going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.

We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail.

Now let me mention one thing to you;

If a name Khan was mentioned twice and you were having """"preservations"" against them.

You would have discussed it before, otherwsie you would have deleted Khan a single time.
But you didn't done this, instead you deleted, edited and vandalised whole of the article, as usuall. This was against WP's policy.

At last, let me share one thing. Obscure people should never be allowed having a space in ""Noteable Marwats"". If they are allowed then they must have true face. I recently read Khan Habibullah Khan, at 3 national dailys. Were they also advertising or are you against him only pulling tribal enimity?"