Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sheikh-ul-Islams of the Ottoman Empire


 * 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 14:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

List of Sheikh-ul-Islams of the Ottoman Empire

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The topic does not seem notable under the WP:GNG as it is unreferenced and searching for "Sheikh-ul-Islams of the Ottoman Empire" (WP:BEFORE) returned no reliable sources. -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 18:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The creator of the article User:DragonTiger23 was indefinitely blocked for evading a topic ban (which was that they could not edit any Greece related articles). The article also fails WP:LISTPEOPLE as reliable sources have not established any of people's membership on this list and most of the people on the list are not notable (as the list contains mostly WP:REDLINKS). -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 18:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 9.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 18:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It's interesting because the topic ban seems to cover 'terrible things done to Turks by Greeks,' but not Turkish topics itself. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Given that the nominator is aware of the move request on the talk page... I find this proposed deletion perplexing. The term in question can be written in any number of ways in the Latin alphabet and sources do not agree on how to pluralize it in English. There is an article on the şeyḫülislām in Facts on File's Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire. The list should be checked against Esra Yakut's Şeyhülislamlık: yenileşme döneminde devlet ve din (Istanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2005), pp. 242–47. Srnec (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep just click the blue link to the article that this is a list about. Its clearly a notable topic. I get the OR concerns, but that just requires looking for the sources, not deleting the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And I will, as I have so many times with this nominator, point to WP:CLN. If we have Category:Sheikh-ul-Islams of the Ottoman Empire, it's reasonable to have a corresponding list. The list already demonstrates some of the WP:AOAL, listing these individuals in chronological order, and with time spans. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. The topic is clearly notable as the supreme religious authority in a major world empire. The transliteration issue is not reasons for deletion. Constantine  ✍  09:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, would you consider withdrawing this AfD per the above comments? There is also a move discussion going on (which, for full disclosure, I have relisted but have no real opinion in the outcomes of). In my past experience, RMs rarely get that much comment if they are also at AfD at the same time, and this appears to be on a way to a keep, and the transliteration issues in the title appear to be the larger concern than the notability, which everyone so far is pretty confident exists. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well where are the sources to prove the items in the list are notable. Right now it seems like the keep votes are saying that there must be sources (but have not shown any examples) See WP:MUSTBESOURCES. -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 15:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to withdraw my !vote as I'm now unsure. It's described as an "honorific title for outstanding scholars of the Islamic sciences," with 131 named during the Ottoman reign, with the shortest tenure being "Memikzade Mustafa Efendi for 13 hours." A case can be made that truly notable examples be linked to in the main article, with no need for a list of 131 names, most of whom may not ever independently notable. As for the category, that's not an issue for here anyway. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Items in a list don't have to be individually notable. That's basic. As for sources, did you miss the part where I cited them with page numbers? Srnec (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh for sure, WP:LISTN does advise us of that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Shawn, 131 over ~500 years amounts to about one every four years (3.8 if you're a stickler). Over half of the Prime Ministers of Australia, didn't make it that long. I think the question here is if the office is notable, and if so, whether it makes sense to have a list. To me, the office appears to be notable, and I don't see any reason against having a list. Also,, there are sources. They're at the bottom of the article. In print and/or not in English is not the same as not being in existence. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * But that is further reading, not actual inline citations which are not the same thing. -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 20:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG does not require that there be footnotes, nor does it require that the sources be in the article at all. It requires that they exist and that someone who has access to them would be able to verify the information. The second entry in the further reading section also lists the exact pages you could go to in that book to find the list, which is more than enough for verifiability concerns. This list is certainly as important as List of Archbishops of Vancouver or List of Patriarchs of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. I understand that their is a difference in Islam and Christianity about clerical offices, but this is clearly a notable position, and it makes sense to have a list for it like we would for other religious offices, even if the individual holders were not necessarily notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, I've switched the "external links" to "references", and made the references inline. Also, some editors edit with little distinction between the two, and it is implicit in WP:BEFORE that the sources in external links be searched. I'm not sure if they were found in this case, but I found them on google books without a problem. Smmurphy(Talk) 20:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - My understanding is that the title went to a/the leading cleric of the empire, the Grand Mufti of Constantinople. So most/all of these individuals are likely to be suitable for inclusion in wikipedia, if/when sources can be found. In the meantime, a list of redlinks should be fine. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If the nominator is going to be arguing deletion because they're not actual inline citations, then it only reinforces my longstanding feeling that this is someone who should be topic banned from Afd for persistent, ongoing cluelessness. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.