Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hent (queen)

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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hent (queen)

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

No evidence for a Queen of this name. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt: "Dodson and Hilton's Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt mentions a "Khenthap" as a possible wife. Ditto Tyldesley's Chronicle of the Queens of Egypt. No "Hent" in Shaw and Nicholson's Dictionary of Ancient Egypt, nor Baker's Encyclopedia of The Egyptian Pharaohs Volume 1. I was able to find a reference to a princess "Hent-tawy" in an article on JSTOR, but she was a Late Period princess of the pharaoh Pinudjem." Dougweller (talk) 07:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for non-notability and unverifiability. It was nice of you to put in some effort and try to fix the article though. --Sbluen (talk) 08:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shesh I for a very similar case from the same author. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment About the only thing that could be said in support of keeping this article is that the letter "h" sometimes is used in place of "kh", so "Hent" might be another way of transcribing "Khenthap". But even if we moved the relevant portion of this article to Khenthap, we'd still need sources for the statements (1) that she was her husband's sister (not unheard of in Ancient Egypt, but still in need of a source), & (2) she was the daughter of Narmer -- or that someone thinks/suggests/speculates she was so related. (FWIW, I did an independent query thru Google Scholar, & found nothing relevant.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The onus is on anyone wanting to keep to provide evidence of notability, and after this much time nobody has done so. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no notability demonstrated in any source, and no sources to support the claims. N2e (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, queens are quite inherently notable, but only if they really existed. Without proof that there were queens by this name, we shouldn't have an article on them. Nyttend (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2010 (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.