Talk:Osmanistan

"to prevent the great evil of Hindi hegemony on Indian Muslims." Isn't this biased? This should either be quoted or changed to be neutral. Zohair Ahmad (talk) 06:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Hyderabad State

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was not to merge into Hyderabad State. -- Deepak D'Souza (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Since this article deals with a small part of the history of the princely state, I believe it should be merged.

• Oppose This article talks about the concept of Osmanistan as a constituent of a federation of Muslim states that was proposed by Ch. Rehmat Ali . Although Osmainstan=Hyderabd state, the two are different in the sense that one was a real entity that existed and the other was an idea that never came true(or nearly did?). --Deepak D'Souza 15:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge and redirect

The argument in the 2009 discussion above ("article talks about the concept of Osmanistan") is not exactly valid. Except "Osmanistan was the proposed name for independent Hyderabad state", there is nothing in this article specific to "Osmanistan". The intro and the History section talk about Operation Polo. The section "Rahmat Ali’s plan" mentions one line about his plan, the second para speaks about his life. This article is a candidate for merge and redirect to Hyderabad State or Operation Polo#Background, unless someone adds some "Osmanistan"-specific content here. 99.230.200.112 (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Need consensus

Sakura6977, DBigXray has provided a valid rationale for blanking this article: #REDIRECT Choudhry_Rahmat_Ali#Proposed_maps_and_names as only used by Rahmat Ali with no independent notability. Your reinstatement without discussion counts as WP:edit warring.

Can you please explain why you are doing this? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3 I accept not having noticed the previous discussion thread. Please go ahead with your "rename thing". Sakura6977 (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Kautilya3 and Sakura6977 for your comments and understanding. As others have also noted on this talk page, There is a strong consensus against keeping this article. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)