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. Jayjg (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heir to the Ottoman dynasty[edit]

Heir to the Ottoman dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Large list of not notable people, Previously and recently recreated article of a different name - Off2riorob (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite sure I know exactly what you really mean. Rest assured that the concerns you describe are only speculation. But I do have genuine doubt as to whether you read the article's Bibliography or not. Anarchangel (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The three items in the bibliography are all available in Google Books, and those sources do not support the list of names in this Wikipedia article. For example: click here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These people are listed on the official Ottoman family website and probably in other genealogies, if these people objected to being known they would not release details publicly. - dwc lr (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is answered further down this page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article that you're referring to, "Line of succession to the throne of Baden", has been properly blanked and converted to a redirect. See here. That followed a discussion at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard, here. Wikipedia articles about living people require reliable sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted it deleted it...PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE ok!!!

Enough!!!

STOP it !!!

If it makes you enjoy the article to delete it, do it anyway.

On my talk page, readers can read it anyway.

As I said, thanks to Facebook, there can be thousands of people read

Dilek2 (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There have been three separate discussions at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard about the unsourced content that has been copied into the article that is now up for deletion. You can read the most recent discussion here. There is nothing savage or unhelpful about deleting unsourced info about living persons that could potentially cause them harm.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Just then delete my article What is this whole discussion My goodness ... I'm tired. Dilek2 (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dilek, WP:AFD discussions last seven days, unless there are pressing requirements or conditions to reduce or expand the time length. Its pretty normal wiki activity. I think we might as well allow this to go the distance now as this content has been recreated in multiple locations and the decision here will give us a guideline as to how to deal with the content if its recreated in future, you can always just remove the page from your watchlist which will make it disappear from your view, I do that if articles or editors are bothering me, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "official site" of the family is here.  Many people have self-published web sites claiming notability, but AFAIK that is insufficient prominence for inclusion in Wikipedia per WP:Undue weight and insufficient notability per WP:Notability. Moreover, there is no indication that the living people in this Wikipedia article gave any information or authorization to the "official site".  It's very common for a family member to have access to information about other family members, even though that information is not in any reliable published source.  Certainly the non-notable long-dead people mentioned in this Wikipedia article did not authorize Internet publication, so there's no reason to think that the living ones did. And there's plenty of reason to believe such publication could be harmful to them: incumbent governments throughout history have exiled or executed former royalty who sought to claim or reclaim royal prerogatives. We need a reliable source.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to think family members have a problem being listed on the official website. As far as I can see from WP:SPS the website is perfectly acceptable to cite. It’s no more harmful to list these people than it is to have an article on any living person. The Turkish government lifted the Imperial Family's exile in the 1950’s for women and 1970’s for men, or around these dates as I’m not sure exactly. There no reason to delete this list every person in it can be cited to a reliable official source. There is a line of succession to the Headship of the Imperial House I don’t see any issues presenting it, it is a historic and notable dynasty. - dwc lr (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The website is not "perfectly acceptable" by WP:SPS. It states: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. You may wish to read WP:BLPSPS for further understanding. Anyone can create their own website about anything and call it the truth or "official", but it doesn't make it a qualified source for an encyclopedia. If you know of a reliable source, please present it. — CactusWriter (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I can see is “Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if..”, and I don’t see how any of the five points apply in this instance so the way I read it the official sources are acceptable. But at any rate I can cite the Almanach de Gotha 2000 and will add this as a reference as well. There is a new Burkes Royal Families published this month and it will possibly have the Ottoman Imperial Family as well. Volume II from 1980 also has the Imperial Family listed. - dwc lr (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DWC LR, the policy quoted by CactusWriter is clear and unequivocal. The material that you can source to Almanach de Gotha can be inserted into Line of succession to the Ottoman throne. The present article that's up for deletion was created merely to avoid Wikipedia's requirement for reliable sources, and this article needs to be deleted because it's redundant. Also, I don't understand why Almanach de Gotha would include some of the 24 living heirs but not the rest of them.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
‘Self published’ websites are allowed to be cited if they are published by themselves. The living members of the Ottoman Imperial Family have published websites hence we can use them as a source, that is the reality to claim otherwise is wrong and not what WP:BLPSPS says. It was published in 2000 so obviously those born after are not listed; the Ottoman princes tend to have a few wife’s so perhaps the genealogists missed some descendants of Sultan Mehmed V, who knows. There is a new ‘’Almanach de Gotha’’ this year as well as a new Burke’s, so perhaps the Gotha will list the living members again. - dwc lr (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All self-published websites are published "by themselves", but that does not make them reliable sources, and the "official site" of the Ottoman dynasty is a perfect example. Another example is the Wordpress blog that you want to use.[1] Wikipedia policy is that blogs are not normally reliable sources. See WP:Blogs. Anyway, thank you for dropping your opposition to deletion of the present article (per your comment at Dilek's talk page).Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not all, for instance you or I could publish a site on the Imperial Family, and it would be ‘self published’. That site is the site of the Ottoman Foundation created by members of the family I believe; perhaps a Turkish speaker could confirm this. Yes I would like to see the line of succession merged to the line of succession article and this redirected there, and the other content in a new article. - dwc lr (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can go to my local town hall, give them ten dollars, and register any business name I want; I could call it the "Foundation for Accuracy in Ottoman Geneology". Anyway, the policy quoted by CactusWriter is very clear about using self-published sources in biographies of living persons. As for turning the article "Heir to the Ottoman dynasty" into a redirect, how does it qualify for any of the listed purposes of a redirect?[2]Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the difference is I don’t think you are an Imperial Ottoman Prince or Princess creating a foundation and then publishing a site about your family, are you? What CactusWriter quoted is referring to other self published sources. And as for the redirect it could be seen as alternative name, or maybe it could be turned into something like List of heirs to the Russian throne. - dwc lr (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am a genuine Imperial Ottoman Princess. (I had to change my name and gender to keep the henchmen of the traitorous "republic" off my tracks. I shouldn't be disclosing this here, but your stubbornness creates a real emergency.) I can tell you with certainty that the ottomanfamily.com domain was registered by a fraudster who is offering adoptions to fools with too much money. Normally I would consider registering ottomanfamily.org, to warn the public and publish the correct list. I am sure you would accept that as proof. But I just don't trust the current government, so I won't do it. In the meantime, accept my word of honour as an Imperial Ottoman Princess that the information on that website is not reliable. Hans Adler 08:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful ;-). I’ll just have to use a media article I found then instead, oh well. - dwc lr (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe some of the stuff can be merged, but definitely not the stuff that is completely unsourced. Likewise, poorly sourced stuff about living people should not be merged either. Princess Adler's assertions above are just as reliable as some of the sources now used in this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The line of succession can, and I imagine will be merged, the other stuff should go elsewhere if there are sources which there most likely are. Mr Adler and CactusWriter have presented just there own pure random speculation and opinions about the authenticity of the official websites. CactusWrtier also called the Almanach de Gotha “somewhat dubious” without again citing any reliable source as evidence to back up their claim. A lot of objections to sources seem to be based on personal opinions; this is concerning when the sources are acceptable. - dwc lr (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DWC LR, please do no pretend ignorance. It is not helpful to this discussion. You've edited on Almanach de Gotha. You are aware of the sourced criticism on the update [3] [4]. And the burden of the speculation is yours. Note our BLP policy: Be very firm about the use of high quality sources... The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. It is you who must prove the authenticity of an alleged "official" website. Otherwise, it is not acceptable. (For the sake of brevity, I did not add the entire policy here. But you should reread it.) I am glad that you are now seeking better sources, such as Burke's and [5]. Please continue to do so. — CactusWriter (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am familiar with those reviews of Almanach de Gotha, Volume 2 (one 'self published' and one without a named author I might add!) on the non Sovereign Princely and Ducal Houses published in 2001. However they have no bearing on the reliability of Volume 1 (which is cited) which is on the Reigning, non reigning and mediatised families. At any rate the Imperial Princes in the line of succession is more than adequately sourced, and has been put at Line of succession to the Ottoman throne. - dwc lr (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That the review is anonymous is completely irrelevant for its reliability so long as it appeared in The Economist. (By the way, for discarding sources as unreliable we don't even need to meet the formal standard of reliability in the sources that inform our decision. Therefore the self-published online review can also be used for that purpose.) And it doesn't just criticise Volume II. It points out extraordinary editorial sloppiness in Volume I exhibited by numerous bizarre orthographical errors, and comments: "If the Almanach’s genealogical accuracy is of a similar standard, the matchmaking dowagers perusing its pages had better watch out." Then it goes on to criticise the managing director and publisher of Volume I (and editor of Volume II) for the grotesque blunder of calling himself "a former member of the [British] royal household" and "separated from his partner, Princess Lavinia of Yugoslavia".
It appears that the modern "Almanach de Gotha" is essentially self-published. The former publishers of the original, real Almanach de Gotha clearly don't want to be associated with that work: "After World War II, publishing of 'The Gotha' had to cease. The genuine 'Gotha' has not been re-published or re-issued since 1944." [6] (My italics.) Hans Adler 05:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t even think the review is that damming, it mainly criticises the selection of families. As for the editor, member of the “[British] Royal Household”, well he editor was Private Secretary to Prince Michael of Kent, hardly a grotesque blunder. But anyway the review is irrelevant for this discussion as it just about Volume 2, and an anonymous attack against the editor, but anyway this is a perfectly acceptable source, maybe If Volume 2 was cited there could be some legitimate concerns. It’s no wonder only ever one edition of Volume 2 got released, but If you have some evidence of a reliable source criticising Volume 1 please present it . Right where are we now: official ottoman family website, Almanach de Gotha, which source will be next... :-) - dwc lr (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The review is explicitly about both volumes. It begins with bibliographic information including prices for both. It even takes some information from the "second part of volume one" and takes it at face value. The first half, including the typos, appears to be generally about Volume I, although that is not made entirely clear. Then he comes to the second part, and that's where the review gets scathing: "It is in the second and newest volume that one enters a realm of fully-fledged absurdity. The choice of families is largely arbitrary. [...] It is an almanac with a most random kind of calendar." Not everybody is in a position to verify the further details of such a work, so presumably the reviewer could not verify that, apart from the absurd selection, at least the other data was correct. That's what Guy Stair Sainty did in his self-published review.[7] There are seven paragraphs listing the inaccuracies he found, starting with this sentence: "The simple inaccuracies here are legion: Princes Biron, Bismarck, Blucher, Dohna-Schlobitten, Radolin, Thun und Hohenstein, and the Duke and Princes of Urach are all Durchlaucht (Serene Highness), not Hoheit (Highness) as the Kennedy Gotha indicates."
The books are not published by an acknowledged publisher or other acknowledged organisation. They are self-published. You can't get around that simply by founding your own publishing company. We might consider them as equivalent to something properly published if they were accepted as accurate by the expert community, but that is clearly not the case and the obvious editorial problems (text looks as if quickly put together with cut-and-paste without even doing a spell check on the result) rule that path out anywa.
Without a doubt, WP:BLPSPS applies for the modern "Almanach de Gotha". Hans Adler 12:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confused. The review may begin with information about both Volume 1 and 2 but the only reference to Volume 1 ‘the second part’, is to say it talks about the mediatised families. The author of the article (whoever it may be) does not say anything positive or negative about Volume 1. You are confusing Volume 1 (Part 1 and 2), with Volume 2. What you quoted "It is in the second and newest volume that one enters a realm of fully-fledged absurdity etc", this is about Volume 2, not Volume 1. Volume 2 is about non sovereign princely and Ducal families. You can see in the reviews the author talks about the British dukes so it is clear what Volume he or she is referring to. Guy Stair Sainty is reviewing Volume 2 as well Urach, Bismark, Biron and so on, are all in Volume 2 nothing to do with Volume 1, so totally irrelevant to the accuracy of Volume 1. Boydell & Brewer actually publish them, check the economist review "Almanach de Gotha 2000: Volume I. Boydell & Brewer; 975 pages; $110 and £60". I’ll ask again if you have a relevant critical reliable source for Volume 1 I’d like to see it. - dwc lr (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@DWC LR. Numbers 1, 2, 4 and 5 are all applicable to the website. The website is wholly without merit for WP:BLP purposes. The reliability of the Almanach de Gotha (2000) is somewhat dubious -- it has been criticized for numerous errors and poor scholarship. On the other hand, Burke's is a good independent source. — CactusWriter (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how you came to the view that points 1, 2, 4 and 5 apply, I'm struggling to see how they do. How is it self serving to list members of their own family? What third parties? What doubts are there, what reason do you have to doubt the authenticity? The article is defiantly not primarily based on the sites, there are at least one print source for most people. I have seen that Volume II came in for some criticism, that is not the volume cited. Thanks. - dwc lr (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The explanation is very simple. First, who wrote the website? There is no contact info, no news sources, no history -- copy-pasted latin babble? -- and lists of unsourced names and dates. This is not even close to qualifying as journalism nor scholarship. That covers point 4. Probably written by someone on the list, that's point 1. All dates and claims about all the other third party names is obviously point 2. And that the name list was copied onto Wikipedia solely based on the website (see previous discussions) is point number 5. What is a true struggle is seeing is how so many people believe if it's written on the internet, than it must be true. Unfortunately, it means deleting text every day based on websites created as hoaxes. (I deleted another bio just yesterday because of it.) If you want to include names of living non-public figures -- especially minor children -- you are responsible for using only very good reliable sources. Otherwise it does not belong on Wikipedia. — CactusWriter (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added another reference from a news article so it doesn’t really matter now anyway. But these princes are of public interest and there are press reports on them, even minor children, as the 2007 birth of His Imperial Highness Prince Harun Osmanoğlu Efendi was recorded in the media for example.[8] - dwc lr (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Status[edit]

I have copied the newly-sourced material from this Wikipedia article into Line of succession to the Ottoman throne.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the merge is completed? Nightw 18:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would say so. I merged the sourced stuff, but not the unsourced stuff. In the edit summary, I noted that some of the sources are problematic, but we can weed those out later.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An admin might as well close this AFD now and either redirect it to the line of succession article, or delete it. - dwc lr (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This will get closed soon enough as nominator I would request is only closed by an administrator, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The closure by User:Ebe123 was the correct decision, regardless of whether they are an admin or not, I don't see the point in this AFD remaining open. The line of succession has already been moved, the other content can be addressed later depending on sources. - dwc lr (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Anythingyouwant, thanks for working on merging any properly sourced information. And, @DWC LR, an AFD which concludes as a delete or requires a history merge can only be closed by an administrator because it requires an admin's tools. A close by a non-admin is inappropriate here. — CactusWriter (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because this is an area of no interest to you does not mean these people are not notable, and of no interest to other people. I doubt ‘non notable’ peoples births are recorded in the press.[9]- dwc lr (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


This list is not a scam

I myself am in contact with an Ottoman prince.

Madame Adler,YOU are not securing Osman princess, but you a member belong to Nadide Arabian.(False Osman).

In Facebook very many real Osmans, Prince and Princesses can be found.

Dilek2 (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But delete ok, but is simply this item.

Which person is wrong in this list?

Name me the name, thanks.

Dilek2 (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The names that are listed without any footnotes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes they are...and this Person with all Date's in the List

But yuu can delete this Article,it's not matter

The Member's are this and not Madame Adler ...or you Anythingyouwant. Dilek2 (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


If Hans Adler claims an Ottoman princess to be,that she must identity had to change (what a nonsense).

The last oldest princess Neslisah Sultan, born in 1921in Istanbul.

No member changed his name and gave up his IDENTITY.

I can also say that I am the wife of a Sultanzade and now?

This can take my word for trust,

that this page is correct and the names of well Pesonen.

Does it make me now trusted?

Dilek2 (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2011 (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.
More