Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selimiye Hatun


 * 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. North America1000 02:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Selimiye Hatun

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This seems to be another fictitious member of the Ottoman dynasty, perhaps created after a matching (fictional) character. She is not mentionned in academic books like Cagatay Ulucay's Padisahlarin Kadinlari ve Kizlari, Alderson's Structure of the Ottoman Dynasty or Peirce The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire, nor even in popular personal website Royal Ark. The prince of whom she's the alledged mother existed, but it seems we simply have no information on his mother. The article on Turkish wikipedia is adorned with a collection of templates that leaves little hope about its survival in normal conditions. Phso2 (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't find any evidence of her on JSTOR or google scholar. Even if she did exist, being the consort of a sultan is not sufficient to demonstrate notability.  (The articles on both Selim II and Mihrimah Sultan both mention Selimiye Hatun, but neither of them provide any sources whatsoever, and indeed in the latter article when information on her was removed for being unsourced, it was reinstated with the explanation "Look at the Selimiye Hatun page").  Delete unless anyone can come up with a source. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 23:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 23:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 23:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 23:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as, although apparently from several centuries ago, there's particularly nothing actually suggesting the needed independent notability for an own article thus nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  07:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I've also checked the Turkish Wikipedia, which is just as short as this article, also without references. st170e talk 12:52, 24 May 2016 (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.