Hümaşah Sultan (daughter of Murad III) : I notice that e.g. the claim about 1648 is sourced to this , but the pdf [24] doesn't mention Humasah or Nakkas.  Another book from the bibliography [25] doesn't seem to mention this daughter either.  This book mentions a "Hümaşah Sultane", but not as daughter of Murad III.  Humasah doesn't seem to appear in this source used as source 3 in the article.  Basically, this needs to be checked by others as well to see if we again have a partial or complete hoax, and if so the creator checked against the previous sock creators of this same page.  Fram ( talk ) 10:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Royalty and nobility ,  and Turkey .  Fram ( talk ) 10:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Everything written in the article is true and nothing has been distorted or added.  The fact is that Nakkash Hasan Pasha was married to the daughter of Murat III in early 1605, but historians have not been able to discover the name.  In the book where 1648 is mentioned, it is seen that Hasan Pasha was married to Humaşah Sultan, which means that she is the daughter of Murat III who was married to him.  Humaikiski ( talk ) 12:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Additionaly, in the document you are reffering, it is written moglie die Nachasc Hasanpascia Humasce sultan vedova , which means that Humashah Sultan was widow of Nakkash Hasan Pasha.  As she recieved gifts in 1648, she was still alive in 1648.  Humaikiski ( talk ) 12:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Humaikiski : Some of the cites have harv errors - I suggest user:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors Chidgk1 ( talk ) 13:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Humaikiski : As many people reading the Turkish article will be Turkish I wonder why nothing from https://katalog.devletarsivleri.gov.tr/ is cited there.  @ Humaikiski : I logged in and tried to search the above archive for هماشاہ سلطان but I could not find anything - that may be because I am not familiar with the site - can you advise?  Chidgk1 ( talk ) 13:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah it seems we have to search using Turkish letters.  So I see there are a lot of documents mentioning Hümaşah Sultan but I am not a historian and cannot read Ottoman.  So I don’t know what they say about her husband or father Chidgk1 ( talk ) 14:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The summary of document 82 you mention says:  Padişahın halası Hümaşah Sultan'ın Kethüdası Ahmed Çavuş'un, Niğde sancağındaki zeametini zaptetmek için gönderdiği iki adamına Ali Çavuş adlı şahıs tarafından müdahalede bulunulduğu ve adamların ortadan kaybolup akıbetlerinin meçhul olduğu, yeniden gönderilen adamlara da aynı şekilde mâni olunduğu ve zeamet mahsulünün Ali Çavuş tarafından alındığı bildirildiğinden, Ali Çavuş'un teftiş edilip kabzettiği mahsulün alınması ve kaybolan adamlara ne olduğunun ortaya çıkartılması.  Chidgk1 ( talk ) 14:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not a native speaker of Turkish but if I understand right first 4 words mean that  Hümaşah Sultan was the paternal aunt of the then sultan Chidgk1 ( talk ) 15:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes.  Paternal aunt of Sultan Ahmed.  Humaikiski ( talk ) 15:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Make sure to keep in mind that we have different persons with the same name and in the same extended family in this period, see Hümaşah Sultan (there may be more than the ones listed here).  Fram ( talk ) 14:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It specifically says that it was Sultan's aunt i.e. Ahmed I's aunt Humashah, so his father's sister.  It cannot be anyone else with this name, situation is clear.  There was no two daughters of Murad III who were named Humashah.  Humaikiski ( talk ) 15:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Humaikiski : When I click ref 8 a lot of it is showing in Serbian - can you change the link so those Serbian words are English?  Chidgk1 ( talk ) 13:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] „82 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri'nin' mentions Humashah Sultan as aunt of Sultan Ahmed, who gave him one of her kethudas.  Humaikiski ( talk ) 13:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I did not check that because I do not like to click any buttons labelled in Serbian because I don’t know the language - please could you change the link to show English instead of Serbian Chidgk1 ( talk ) 13:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not undestand exactly what do you want and for which part precisely.  Humaikiski ( talk ) 14:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] OK I have edited cite 8 and hope it now shows English.  Are you able to add the quote as described at the end of Wikipedia:GBOOKS ?  If not maybe you could use the quote and  trans-quote parameters on cite 8 Chidgk1 ( talk ) 14:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Fram Are you able to link the previous deletion discussions so we can read them?  Chidgk1 ( talk ) 16:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as primary source above shows she existed, and I hope the article will be improved Chidgk1 ( talk ) 16:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for your work on this.  However, all we seem to have are some unrelated snippets for some unrelated facts where through WP:SYNTH a narrative is created (an aunt is mentioned here, a widow is mentioned there, and that's about it).  At the moment, we have a combination of original research and a lack of notability , even if the concerns of an outright hoax seem to be laid to rest.  Fram ( talk ) 08:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not thinking of spending any more time on this - I hope other people will weigh in now Chidgk1 ( talk ) 17:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : See Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Family .  This person has no real notability and fails the criteria of WP:GNG .  Being related to someone notable does not distinguish your own page.  " Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. Articles about notable people that mention their family members in passing do not, in themselves, show that a family member is notable. "  Noorullah ( talk ) 03:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Several sources prove she existed, so it is essential for article to exist.  The same will be improved and refined.  Humaikiski ( talk ) 12:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Her existing does not deserve a page on its own.  See the related areas I linked in my delete post, the individual being a relative of a famous person does not distinguish them as notable.  @ Humaikiski Noorullah ( talk ) 18:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hümaşah Sultan was very important person in that time; she was daughter of Safiye Sultan, thus own sister of Mehmed III and own sunt of Ahmed I. Sources indicate that she was still alive years later, and the interest of people is great to see true informations acquired from sources (influenced by the series).  Humaikiski ( talk ) 23:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Checkuser note: Humaikiski blocked as a sock of Dp210 ( talk · contribs ).   I didn't delete this article while nuking others because there's a keep here, but it's already been deleted twice per WP:G5 .  NinjaRobotPirate ( talk ) 16:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have not seen the previous discussions - is it possible to see them?  Chidgk1 ( talk ) 15:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] [26] The creations by this editor (different accounts) have been deleted many times because of "sockmaster's history of incorrect referencing / maybe outright hoaxing" as it was stated in an earlier deletion note.  Fram ( talk ) 15:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete : WP:G5 would save us from wasting time by needlessly trying to verify and determine the notability.  Regardless, the creator (sock) doesn't appear to understand that inherited notability is not allowed and repeats how she is a relative of famous Ottoman figures.  If the topic was really notable, assuming there are sources we currently don't know about, some legit experienced editor can recreate the article if they wish in the future.  I ask Chidgk1 to reconsider their vote, because primary sources are irrelevant.  Aintabli ( talk ) 04:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don’t have a strong opinion about notability or about this article.  But if the result is delete it would be good if this discussion remains visible so that if a legit experienced editor wants to recreate the article in future at least from the primary source I found they might be able to find more sources.  I got fed up with Turkish Wikipedia because so many of my changes are reverted.  I have now added the primary source to the Turkish article but it may get reverted.  If it is not a good idea to leave this discussion visible if you are able to re-add the primary source to the Turkish article I think that would be useful.  When I first saw this discussion I had a look at the Turkish article but it was not at all useful in determining whether this article was a hoax or not.  Chidgk1 ( talk ) 09:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How about we keep it as a one sentence stub just to show she existed?  Then people who watch the TV series would be able to look back at the article history and if interested buy the books mentioned to try and find out whether the statements are true and possibly re-expand the article.  Chidgk1 ( talk ) 09:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have requested quotations on the Turkish article.  If nobody supplies quotes is there any chance you could stubify that article to one sentence?  If I do so I am sure someone will put the dubious content back in Chidgk1 ( talk ) 09:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] By the way I cannot find her in the thesis mentioned in the bibliography namely https://etd.ohiolink.edu/acprod/odb_etd/ws/send_file/send? accession=osu1278971259&disposition=inline So as Fram says all the cites in the article may be useless unless anyone wants to check them Chidgk1 ( talk ) 10:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Chidgk1 I disagree with a one sentence stub still being in place.  Per my deletion post, this person has no real notability other then being related to a King, which does not affirm notability itself per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Family .  Noorullah ( talk ) 11:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  Might be eligible for SOFTDELETE.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 01:38, 15 February 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: speedy delete