Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meyrem Ayşe 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. The page evidently fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. We do not normally merge unverifiable and unsourced content. SwisterTwister, you have !voted twice; I considered your comments together as one. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meyrem Ayşe Sultan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a hoax though perhaps not flagrant enough to qualify for speedy deletion. Nevertheless, the article provides no references and none could be found online. As I indicated on the article's talk page: "The current content of this article is at odds with the content of Murad IV, Haseki sultan and Valide sultan. Given the complete lack of sources, this is enough to seriously question the validity of this article. Note also that a Google search for "Meryem Ayşe Sultan murad IV" finds nothing (beyond a few versions of Wikipedia articles edited by the creator ValideSultan (talk · contribs) to match this questionable content!)". Pichpich (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Invention for the most part, mixed with elements copied from Ayşe Hatun (wife of Murad IV)--Phso2 (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches have found something to at least confirm it apparently exists but the current article is so questionable, there's nothing to suggest anything convincing and is thus best deleted. SwisterTwister talk 00:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This article already exists in WP (see Ayşe Hatun (wife of Murad IV)). It should be merged to the former article. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no sense to merge if "Meyrem Ayşe Sultan" is an invented name which appears to be the case. Pichpich (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A completely imaginary person. The article is also unsourced. None of the books or historians mention the existence of such woman. Keivan.f^Talk 11:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I intended to comment sooner, I was able to find some sources but nothing to finally clear the current questionability. SwisterTwister talk 18:29, 16 June 2016 (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.