Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Şemsişah Sultan


 * 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. Tone 20:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Şemsişah Sultan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Invented character, no source. Peirce does not mention her, so this is a case of a fake reference. No usual source about Ottoman history mention her either. Phso2 (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I can't find a single mention anywhere. The references are really poor. The father, Levan II Dadiani has two wives according to the Georgian article. One of these wives had four children with two of them being daughters. It is possible that this is one of them.  scope_creep Talk  10:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * comment - I did verify before accepting this at WP:AFC. I thought I found her in the Peirce reference but I can reproduce that this morning so apparently it was elsewhere. I should have taken notes. I'll try to have another look at this soon. ~Kvng (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The father article has her original name.  scope_creep Talk  11:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken, what Peirce writes about Murad IV's consort lays here, ie one Ayșe and one another anonymous (in Peirce) favorite. No Georgian royal family, only the notion that "very little is known". This is not the first fictitious article written about a member of Ottoman dynasty, it is probably a side-effect of the success of Muhteşem Yüzyıl.--Phso2 (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I read the page, possibly a fictional article? What an odd phenomena. I would suggest a delete then. I think the other article needs updated.  scope_creep Talk  12:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Good evening,I'm the writer of this article. You are right to think this is a fictional article for the mistake was made on my part as I didn't add all the citations and sources needed to proove the veracity of the article-I simply forgot. But I added the citations and sources which can be found in the "Names" and "Life" sections in the article. As for the part which indicates that Zilihan was part of Murad IV's harem it is in the citation after the word "Şemsişah" in the "Life" section more specifically on page 6 of the pdf in the "2 Eşleri" paragraph.I would never create an article if I wasn't sure of the information I'm using. I hope you give the article another read now that I added the sources and change your mind about its deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christelle75 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you did'nt add any reliable source : this pdf is not a reliable source so it can't be used here. You have to find a history book written by a scholar, not a essay written by anybody.--Phso2 (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC) PS: You also have to explain why you put Peirce as a reference for "Şemsişah Haseki Sultan" (ref 3), when she actually never mentions a "Şemsişah Haseki Sultan".


 * Comment I don't know anything about this period, but it's not self-evident that the image at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zilikhana_Dadiani.jpg is a forgery or mis-identified. It seems that Cristoforo de Castelli (1600-60) did indeed make lots of sketches at the Georgian court at this time: http://library.ifla.org/53/1/095-chikhladze-en.pdf. But I too have checked a full, searchable text of Peirce and don't find any mention. Alarichall (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't suggest the image is a forgery or mis-identified, howewer its description "Zilihana Dadiani, daughter of Levan II. A sketch by the Catholic missionaire Don Cristoforo De Castelli" DOES NOT make any connection to a "Şemsişah Haseki Sultan" nor to the Ottoman dynasty.Phso2 (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It's not the file that prooves Zilihan Dadiani was Şemsişah Sultan it's the pdf I cited: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1InlFHfvxGlBaicpp8oYZyrZO1j90LcEE/view?usp=drivesdk you can find Şemsişah sultan on page 6 in the "2 eşkleri" paragraph, also this pdf is reliable you can even check its bibliography which is composed solely on books written by Turkish historians. As for why I put a Pierce reference after "Şemsişah Haseki Sultan" it wasn't meant to be put there it was meant to be cited after "1,000 aspers" because according to Pierce Murad IV's wives/concubines earned 1,000 aspers a day.~Christelle75 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christelle75 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply! The weird thing about that PDF, however, is that it's a copy of an old version of the Turkish Wikipedia entry for Murad IV. The current version doesn't mention Şemsişah or Zilikhana, though! This is the last version of that entry where she appeared. The edit summary for the next entry says 'Nushirevan11 (mesaj | katkılar) tarafından oluşturulmuş 14.53, 8 Aralık 2016 tarihli sürüm (→‎Eşleri: Temrukoğlu adında bir tarihçi yoktur. Temrukoğlu soyadında bloglar açan çeşitli kadın sultanları kendi soyundan zanneden takıntılı bir şahsın uyduruk hikayeleridir. Necdet Sakaoğlu'nun kitabında iki eşi olduğu yazar.)'. Google Translate says this means 'Nushirevan11 (message | contributions) by 14.53, dated 8 December 2016 (→ spouses: there is no historian named Temrukoglu. Temrukoglu, who opened blogs in the name of the various women sultans who think his descendants are obsessive stories of a person obsessed. author.)'. Could you help us with this discussion? Is there reliable evidence that Şemsişah Sultan existed and was also called Zilihana Dadiani? Alarichall (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As showed by the edit summary, the relevant part was erased by Nushirevan11 on the Turkish WP because this pdf is a non reliable writing signed by some people named "Temrukoglu" who claims to be related to the Ottoman dynasty on various blogs(cf ; same claims about the same family were to be found on other Ottoman family members' articles a while ago ).Phso2 (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would be really happy if it turns out there's scholarship out there (presumably not in English, as I've searched hard for evidence in English) that shows that this person was real and notable. But given the discussion so far, I would support deleting. I'm conscious that this is your first Wikipedia entry in English, and it's great to see you've been editing in Arabic Wikipedia too: you are obviously bringing some amazing skills to Wikipedia. I would not want you to be discouraged if this article is deleted. So if you want help with editing in future (for example if you want help finding scholarly sources or advice about Wikipedia guidelines), totally write to me on my talkpage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alarichall. Thanks for your efforts! Alarichall (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Lots of discussion... but just one clear !vote so far.
 * Delete, A fake name. IV. Murad has no wife like that. This name is not mentioned in Necdet Sakaoğlu's Women Sultans.--Nushirevan11 (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * since this is the third relisting after 22 days of process, could you please make your votes more clear in order to end this discussion? So far no source has been produced to support the content of this article except a non reliable pdf found on the net, which contradicts a reliable source: there is no reason to keep this AfD open indefinitely.Phso2 (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: I don't really feel qualified to comment on this, but as far as I can see, we should delete. Alarichall (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire is by Oxford University Press, must be a good reference. Delete if there is no other evidence since I made my last comment almost three weeks ago. There seems to be no evidence for her.   scope_creep Talk  12:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, but could you please vote clearly Delete instead of just Comment please? because otherwise your advice is still counted as "discussion" instead of "clear !vote" and it doesn't help to close the AfD.Phso2 (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice - Lack of coverage where it would be expected. Possible WP:HOAX although there is no evidence of this. ~Kvng (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Second delete for visibility. scope_creep Talk  16:19, 25 February 2019 (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.