 | This article was nominated for deletion on 15 October 2020. The result of the discussion was merge. |
Title edit
"Selimgate" is used in a single tweet hashtag so it is not the common name for this incident or a title we can use. How about moving this article to the title God's Shadow and add a short intro about the book itself? – Thjarkur (talk) 10:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Reasonable point, but the page is about the debate, rather than the book itself. Also, the term is in pretty common use in the (admittedly small) world of Ottoman studies. Will Hanley (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes I'm suggesting that the article be made about the book, since it started the debate. I couldn't find any other mentions of this term, but it might catch on later as more papers get published. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- agree with Thjarkur. Even very big academic debates are typically found on the page of either the book or the authors they involved, and only much more rarely on standalone pages, when they typically involve dozens of persons & articles & books and so on, whereas this controversy so far appears to consist of a book and 4 or 5 reviews of it. If God's Shadow is an important enough book to warrant a page on its own (and I'm not offering an opinion on that), then this content belongs there. If it is not that important, then a social media controversy about it isn't either. To the points raised by others, including this content on the God's Shadow page would make it just as searchable as it is on a standalone page. 72.84.251.244 (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes I'm suggesting that the article be made about the book, since it started the debate. I couldn't find any other mentions of this term, but it might catch on later as more papers get published. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Selimgate edit
Selimgate may not be a common term but it is definitely being used on social media, and may be searched for by people new to the debate. The piece has links to the book and the authOr. Vaykaramba (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
This entry should be deleted. It elevates an unverifiable neologism and disparaging tweets to the level of facts. It may also involve copyright violations.Baxter555 (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Baxter555, your comments about deletion belong at the deletion discussion. Please provide specific details for your copyright violation accusation. Schazjmd (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)