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 merge to Rise of the Ottoman Empire. Time for a bold merge as suggested. Books is good RS (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation of Ottoman Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The article basically goes over the more trivial aspects of Sultan Osman I, which can all be covered in his own article. Additionally, the title is written in improper grammar - it should read Foundation of the Ottoman Empire, however the page with that title actually redirects to this article. I am not suggesting that they be deleted - I actually want both Foundation of Ottoman Empire and Foundation of the Ottoman Empire to be redirected to Rise of the Ottoman Empire, which is the page that provides the information that people are likely looking for when they want to read about the empire's foundation. I tried to notify editors at WT:TURKEY and the article's talk page prior to considering AfD, but there are very few people who are keeping an eye on either of those pages, plus the consensus could potentially be too biased. Bringing it here for community imput. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —Master&Expert (Talk) 01:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Suggest you be bold and merge as per your request, without waiting. There is nothing contentious about your suggestion. It's eminently sensible. However, Rise is in dire need of inline citations. Ddawkins73 (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know. It also needs significant expansion, as do the relevant articles. I was thinking of doing that myself, but I wanted a consensus to back it up (not to be rude, but there have been some strong Turkish nationalists in the past, and I didn't want to get into a flame war with them. I'll probably even do that tomorrow, if nobody objects - for now, I need some sleep. Master&Expert (Talk) 07:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can't tell what the article is about, although it seems that the original intent was to refer to a specific body of work called The Foundation of the Ottoman Empire. There was a book of that name in 1916 by an author named Herbert Gibbons, although the author appears to be talking about something older. If anyone would like to write an article about the Ottoman Chronicles (also referred to as Chronicle of the Ottoman Dynasty), it would be worthwhile. That was the "official record" compiled in Constantinople/Istanbul, something like the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was for pre-1066 Brtiain. Mandsford (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - appears to be about a book of some kind, not an article about a the topic which the "rise of" article handles -"Foundation of the Ottoman Empire is one of the oldest sources regarding the establishment of the Ottoman Empire." -Stevertigo 06:28, 14 February 2009 (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.