Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cevherriz Hanımefendi


 * 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 keep. The article's subject is found to be notable for inclusion. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 11:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Cevherriz Hanımefendi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is completely unsourced and the subject doesn't seem to be notable. The main problem, however, is that this woman was probably not the wife of an Ottoman sultan. Per this discussion: User talk:Retrieverlove User:Retrieverlove clearly states that according to his research this lady was a treasurer or kalfa. I can't for sure say whether he's right or not. There's no obstacle in having an article about a notable imperial treasurer (as we already have), but the main issue with this article is that not even a single sentence is backed by a reliable source. So it's unsourced and provides wrong information, thus it confuses the readers and gives them wrong feedback. Apart from that it fails GNG. Keivan.f Talk 12:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. No notability if she ever existed. Info is found under another name in Alderson's "Structure of the Ottoman dynasty", not in Uluçay.--Phso2 (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC) Neutral. Since then the article has be renamed and its content drastically changed. Not sure of the subject's notability though.--Phso2 (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 07:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relist to allow further assessment of Sam Sailor's findings.
 * Comment Did you have a look at the better sourced article at ru:Джевхерриз Ханым-эфенди? A look at one of the sources there, http://www.enfal.de/otarih44.htm lists her as [//www.google.com/search?q= "Cevher-riz Hanımefendi"] which at least returns a few book sources. — Sam Sailor 07:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC) @Sam Sailor Hi. First of all I just want to say that I don't consider Russian Wikipedia a reliable source in this matter as every page about these female Ottoman figures was first created here and then a similar one was created on the Russian wiki, so they just kind of copy the articles. About the sources, I checked them and yes, her name is listed as a wife of Murad V, but that doesn't make her notable. As another user said above even if she was an Ottoman consort she wouldn't be a notable one, probably because she wasn't a chief consort or a queen mother thus there's nothing in the sources that can be used for writing a biography. And as you can see on the Russian wiki the only parts that are sourced are her dates of birth and death and the rest of the article lacks any kind of citation, probably because it's fictional, as usual. Keivan.f Talk 08:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , I don't pretend to know the first thing about this subject area, and the language barrier means I'm not going to try to ameliorate my ignorance. :) My comment was solely meant as a FYI, as Cevher-riz Hanımefendi did return a few search results, but I trust the matter is well taken care of by you. Khodafez. — Sam Sailor 09:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Sources were added to the article after it was nominated for deletion.
 * Weak keep, under the name "Gevherriz", she is mentioned a few times in Brooks 2010 ( Brookes, Douglas Scott. The concubine, the princess, and the teacher: Voices from the Ottoman Harem. University of Texas Press, 2010. ) and her ability in French seemed to give her an important role in politics, as can be seen in that book and as "Gevheriz" here ([https://translate.google.com/#tr/en/Taha%20Toros%20Ar%C5%9Fivi%2C%20Dosya%20No%3A%20120-Saraylar.%20Not%3A%20Gazetenin%20%22Tarihten%20Sayfalar%22%20k%C3%B6%C5%9Fesinde%20yay%C4%B1mlanm%C4%B1%C5%9Ft%C4%B1r.%0A%0ATarihten%20Sayfalar%0A%C3%87%C4%B1ra%C4%9Fanm%20me%C5%9Fhur%20kad%C4%B1n%20simalar%C4%B1%0A%0A%C3%87%C4%B1ra%C4%9Fanm%20pek%20ak%C4%B1ll%C4%B1%20ve%20mal%C3%BBmatl%C4%B1%20kad%C4%B1nlar%C4%B1ndan%20hirisi%20de%20Gevheriz%20han%C4%B1md%C4%B1.%20V.%20Murad%C4%B1n%20g%C3%B6zdelerinden%20olan%20bu%20han%C4%B1m%20Frans%C4%B1zcaya%20tamamen%20v%C3%A2k%C4%B1ft%C4%B1%2C%20Eski%20h%C3%BCk%C3%BCmdar%20veliahtl%C4%B1%C4%9F%C4%B1nda%20dairesinden%20baz%C4%B1%20m%C3%BCstait%20%C3%A7oeuklarla%20beraber%20Gevheriz%20han%C4%B1m%C4%B1%20da%20Frans%C4%B1z%20mektebine%20g%C3%B6ndermi%C5%9Fti.%0AFrans%C4%B1z%20mektebinin%20muvaffak%20%20talebelerinden%2C%20olan%20Gevheriz%20han%C4%B1m%20Frans%C4%B1z%20lisan%C4%B1na%20iyice%20v%C3%A2k%C4%B1f%20olduktan%20sonra%20Sultan%20Murad%C4%B1n%20dairesinde%20k%C4%B1zlara%2C%20sonra%20%C3%87ira%C4%9Fanda%20sultanlara%2C%20%C5%9Eehzadelere%20Frans%C4%B1zca%20dersleri%20vermi%C5%9Ffi.%20%0AV.%20Murad%C4%B1n%20hal%E2%80%99ir.den%20bi%20m%C3%BCddet%20sonra%20su%20yollar%C4%B1ndan%20%C3%87tra%C4%9Fana%20al%C4%B1nan%20bir%20Frans%C4%B1z%20hekime%20de%20Gevheriz%20han%C4%B1m%20terc%C3%BCmanl%C4%B1k%20etmi%C5%9Fti.%0ABir%20b%C4%B1%C4%B1%C3%A7%C4%B1ik%20sene%20evvel%20%C3%B6ieh%20Cev%3A%2Ceriz%20ham%C4%B1m%20%C2%AB%C3%B6rm%C3%BC%C5%9F%20ve%20kendSsiV%C3%AEe%20kotm%C5%9FmustiMn%20Abdul%C3%A2*izin-%20V.%20Murad%C4%B1n%20c%C3%BClusuna%20ve%20o%20g%C3%BCnlere%20ait%20baz%C4%B1%20k%C4%B1s%C2%BB%20h%20%C4%B1i%C4%B1ralar%C4%B1m%20not%20etmi%C5%9Ftim%20tiuniar%C4%B1%20bir%20ayr%C4%B1%20vaz%C4%B1da%20okuyucular%C4%B1ma%20bildirece%C4%9Fim. google translation]). Smmurphy(Talk) 18:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep references look sufficiently reliable. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete not enough here for GNG. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * @Chris troutman Do you still think that it should be deleted? The article has been moved and it seems that it's (probably) well-sourced now. I think the sources are reliable, aren't they? I just want to know your opinion. Keivan.f  Talk 09:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the sourcing is too thin to connote GNG; I take less issue with the reliability of the sources. I still support deletion. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 13:41, 7 March 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.