Ağa hamamı: The only source used here is the hammam's own commercial website, which is not a reliable source .  It also makes the WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that the hammam was built in 1454, the same year of the Ottoman conquest of the city, which would make it one of the oldest Ottoman buildings in the city, if not the oldest.  This has no support in actual reliable sources, which make no mention of this (e.g. see references at Tahtakale Hamam , which discuss the oldest hammams and other known Ottoman structures from this era).  Judging by the choice of source and by the page creator , I'm also starting to suspect this was a WP:COI .  R Prazeres ( talk ) 16:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions .  R Prazeres ( talk ) 16:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Travel and tourism .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Quick note: if anyone is looking up Ağa hamamı in sources, keep in mind that there is at least one other "Ağa hamamı" (or "Aga Hamam" etc) in the Samatya neighbourhood of Istanbul and there may be other hammams with the same name elsewhere.  R Prazeres ( talk ) 16:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed.  The Kapıağası Yakup Ağa Hamamı, often just known as Ağa Hamamı.  And that one is far more notable and appears in guidebooks.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Necrothesp : I think the comment below was to check explicitly if you support keeping or deleting? Or no opinion? R Prazeres ( talk ) 16:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral. I didn't express an opinion one way or the other. I merely commented. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 07:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: What outcome would you like to see happen?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Covered by timeout , stating "built in 1454 by Sultan Mehmet the Conqueror and was used privately by the Sultan and his male heirs."  Clearly is a significant term of use.  This in turn points that the place has some strong historical context.  You would have thought with that, this should have plenty of WP:OFFLINE sources.  Lonelyplanet snippet, cityseeker snippet.  arnoldreview ?  Covered by [2] .  Obviously it needs better sourcing, but due to the little coverage there is, which shows it's historical age and aspect shows there should be plenty more sources out there that should be able to use.  Unless it's all bullshit history trying to get people through the door.  Well, that's possible, but that really requires a different kind of investigation.  For now, I am on the little of what google provides.  Govvy ( talk ) 10:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:SIGCOV requires that a topic "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject ."  This isn't the case here.  Of course a business can be found in blogs and review sites, like those you've linked; my local pizza restaurant would fit that criteria too, but that doesn't make it WP:NOTABLE .  The last link you provided ( [3] ) is also not the same place, it's the Samatya hammam mentioned above.  As mentioned, the historical claim has no support in RS .  Even the normally quite thorough Turkish Islam Ansiklopedisi has nothing about it.  Whether the claim is deliberate bullshit I won't say, but it certainly doesn't satisfy WP:VERIFIABILITY .  R Prazeres ( talk ) 16:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As far as I can see, the claim made in the article is false.  Turkish Airlines has covered some hamams of Istanbul , and notes that the building itself was indeed built in 1454 as a hunting house.  However, it only became a hamam after 1923.  So that would perhaps make it the oldest building that has a hamam in it, but not the oldest operational hamam in the city.  Basically some smart wording/PR trick coming from the website of the business that runs it to label this as the oldest, which we have taken over directly without elaboration because....  the creator of this article is likely the owner himself.  Sources published post-2014 (i.e. since the creation of this article) paraphrase about the same 3 sentences found in the Turkish Airlines blog, so I won't bother to list them here.  So I looked for sources before that date, and the only thing that came up was a book from 2010 on Istanbul hamams by the municipality (which I would consider to be much more reliable than any source mentioned above).  There are 2 hamams in the book named "Ağa Hamamı", ours is located on page 41, easily identifiable as the book mentions the street its located on.  This book gives a completely different history: it was built in 1562—already a hamam—and the income was used to fund the Fenerbahçe Lighthouse .  Both the inside and outside have been renovated several times and there is nothing "historic" about the building anymore.  The book also says that the building is described in the Istanbul Encyclopedia of Reşad Ekrem Koçu .  I'd say that the building is notable, but not the business itself.  Since our article currently only serves the latter with incorrect information, I don't think this can stay without a TNT .  So yeah, delete unless anyone wants to clean this up.  Styyx ( talk ) 16:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for all this great research (that 2010 book is a nice find).  I just want to add: even a claim about the building itself being a hunting lodge built in 1454 is undoubtedly wrong, and a Turkish Airlines blog wouldn't count as reliable source for that either.  R Prazeres ( talk ) 22:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have found the Istanbul Encyclopedia on archive.org.  Volume 1, pages 241–243 are about this hamam, if anyone wants to use it.  It indeed notes that it's a 16th-century building, so I think this confirms that the story in the article is fully made up.  Styyx ( talk ) 09:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG and NGEO.  Single source in article is to the subject's own website.  BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth .  Ping me if WP:SIRS is found, Styyx's TNT idea may be the best solution, if sources are ever found it can be created without the baggage.  // Timothy :: talk 23:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Clear case of WP:PROMOTION by single purpose editor who only has created this article.  - DonCalo ( talk ) 13:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 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.

Discussion outcome: delete