Talk:Empire of Fez and Morocco

Clearly NOT a dooblon, nor WP:OR
To Omar-Toons: This article is about the state controlled by the dynasty before the protectorate. The dynasty evolved, as Morocco did, and went from being a Sultanate, to de jure rule under the protectorate, to finally take its current form as a monarchy. So needless to say, there should be two articles, where one is about the former country and the other about the dynasty, which went trough several evolutions. Furthermore, the net is abundant with sources about the period of the Cherifian of Sharifian Empire. So your personal arguments to remove this page are simply delusional. (WP:OR) So please, stop removing articles, just because you don't see it that way. karimobo (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It IS a doubloon : In all dynasties' related articles on WP there are only one article and I see no reason why it should be otherwise for this one. However, we can consider creating three articles, the first one related to the Cherifian Empire of Morocco, which applies for the 1509-1912 period, and the second and third related to the kingdoms (in fact, vice-royalties) of Fez and Marrakech, which existed since the Marinid era, and not only under the Alaouites, and that's why it IS an OR. --Omar-Toons (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well other dynasty-related articles are not applicable to the Alaouite dynasty. If you still don't see why in this case it's different, I'll repeat my point. The Alaouite dynasty ruled a sultanate, under Moulay Ismail it was reconverted to an Empire after he conquered the European factories on the Moroccan coast, additionally, in 1912 under the protectorate the dynasty reigned but did not rule, and finally in 1956, as Morocco regained independence the dynasty took control over Morocco again as a Kingdom. This is definitely not the case for most other dynasties. I hope now you see why different articles are nescessary to give a clear view to the reader, seeing you've made the argument of creating different articles yourself, of the Vice-royalties. But then you go and remove the page?! I honestly don't see where you're going with this. Niet logisch karimobo (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * These article still are OR, doubloons and fairly sourced --Omar-Toons (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)