This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey
The previous discussion on the deletion of this article only had 3 people voting on it, which I personally would not say is enough to create a consensus decision. I was not aware that the page was deleted before when I made it, but I would argue that despite there not being many sources available in English, that the current head of the House of Osman, who were a very important royal dynasty, is automatically notable by virtue of their position. I would like there to be more of a discussion of this deletion rather than simply speedy deleting it. --Jwslubbock (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't inherited. The Ottoman dynasty ended a century ago. His great-grandfather being one of the last sultans doesn't make him notable. --John B123 (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also would say that a good argument for keeping this article is that neo-Ottomanism is a rising ideology in Turkey, and there is even a political party which advocates for the restoration of the Sultanate. So this guy is getting quite a lot of press in Turkey at the moment. I could add quite a few more sources if we agree to suspend the deletion. It's certainly a bit of a deletionist overreaction to nominate for speedy delete without a proper discussion, which we are now having. This discussion should be allowed to continue.--Jwslubbock (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jwslubbock: I find "deletionist overreaction" offensive. The article was previously discussed at WP:AfD, the result was delete. Clearly you don't like that outcome, in which case a deletion review would be the appropriate way to challenge it. Recreating the article does not press a reset button and start the process from zero. Keep having discussions until the result is keep is not the way it works.
I would note that one of the article's sources "Last heir to Ottoman throne passes away at 90"[1] implies that although Osman is the head of the House of Osman, the families claim to the throne died with Dündar Abdülkerim Osmanoğlu. --John B123 (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@John B123: The idea of deletionism is a very common descriptor on Wikimedia projects. If you take offence at it, that's really not my fault. As I've already stated, I didn't recreate an article I knew had been deleted, because the previous article had a different name, as you yourself stated when trying to speedy delete it. Furthermore, you seem to have misunderstood the Daily Sabah article, nowhere in which it states that the family no longer has a claim to the throne. Neo-Ottomanism is alive and well in Turkey. There is no throne to sit on, because the Sultanate was abolished, but like many European royal families, there is a continuing person who is the head of the family who would be the rightful heir if the monarchy/sultanate was somehow brought back. I really think that this shows an issue with admins who know nothing about a subject not seeking proper consensus before rushing to delete things. That's what I call deletionism. --Jwslubbock (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jwslubbock: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and as such the articles it contains should be capable of being read and understood by readers with little or no previous knowledge of the subject. If the significance of the subject needs to be explained outside the article then the article has failed its intended purpose and has no place on WP. From that perspective, somebody who knows nothing of the subject can make a more objective assessment of the article than somebody who knows about the subject and will have preconceived opinions.
No misunderstanding about the Daily Sabah article, the headline says it all: "Last heir to Ottoman throne passes away at 90". Last means the final one, Dündar Abdülkerim Osmanoğlu can't be the last heir if there is another one to replace him. I would note that the claim in the article of "Sultan of the Ottoman Empire" has now been removed.
There are no articles about decedents of some deposed European monarchs, such as Zog I of Albania, and there are some that do, such as Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia. Therefore there is no precedent that there should be an article for people who would be on a throne if their ancestors hadn't been deposed. If we take out ancestry and decedents from this article then there is little more than a single line left. Compare that to Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia; the same process still leaves a significant article. --John B123 (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also would say that a good argument for keeping this article is that neo-Ottomanism is a rising ideology in Turkey Then that needs to be brought out in the article to have any relevance. Notability needs to be demonstrated on the page. --John B123 (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I simply do not believe that this person's notability would be in doubt if they were British. Every other random person with a title in the UK has their own Wikipedia page, including my own half brother, Lyulph Lubbock, and there's absolutely no way he's more notable than the current head of the House of Osman. I agree with you that the page could be expanded with reference to why neo-Ottomanism is becoming more important in Turkey, but to do that, we'd have to abandon the speedy deletion that has so hastily been decided upon without the discussion which we are now having. In fact, since I created the stub, it has been expanded upon, and I would be happy to continue to improve the article if there was consensus about keeping it. --Jwslubbock (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@John B123: I've never read Osmanoglus claimed to be sultans, nor there is any "Ottoman government in exile". I would note that the claim in the article of "Sultan of the Ottoman Empire" has now been removed. is pure assumption because of the translation error by Daily Sabah. Beshogur (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beshogur: Thanks for the clarification and removal on the page. Is it an oversight that "Head of the Osmanoğlu family" is now listed as a "Titles in pretence"? --John B123 (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@John B123: I don't know how to remove the pretence text. If you can do it, thanks in advance. Also a long time, there was "Sultan of the Ottoman Empire" text present by "Abdulmejid II" which is clearly a big mistake, he never claimed to being sultan, he was just a caliph until the abolition and I'm not sure if he claimed being caliph (doubt) after his exile. Also looking at this, seems like Daily Sabah loves to portray them as princes, etc. due to their own political views maybe. There is no "prince" officially, they're just equal to a normal Turkish citizen. Beshogur (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
