Talk:Teispids

Deletion proposal
I propose this article for deletion. Reason: wp:OR and WP:Undue. The view that there was a Teispid dynasty is a minority view and according to the Wikipedia:deletion that "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline" this article does not belong to Wikipedia. Moreover, the article falsifies the source: that Cyrus I, Cambyses I, and Cyrus II are called by some Teispid. This article does OR to include their sons and grandsons as well. Tthis article is too short and can be put somewhere else if the viewpoint deserve mention (though in wikipedia non consensus view should not be given any weight). If you remove the deletion Tag, please explain the reason. Xashaiar (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As discussed earlier on other talkpages, it is not a minority view. the subject is notable; numerous academic papers mention it. It does not falsify anything, reference for Cambyses II and Bardiya is added; no OR. Finally it is now just a stub, can be well expanded. Ellipi (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Reason for disputed tag?
What is the reason for adding a disputed tag? Ellipi (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You have created a page, just based on controversial thesis which is not backed by the consensus of experts on this topic. Indeed, even Stronach (which is the main source of this) only mentions this theory as a possibility, not as fact. You want to implicitly indicate that Cyrus was Elamite and Darius was Persian and families of Cyrus and Darius were totally unrelated to each other. This story is not compatible with most of the academic sources. You may like this theory, but wikipedia is not the right place to magnify fringe theories. Alefbe (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources to back your claims? (BTW, Elamite origin of Cyrus is another subject, which I've not yet discussed.) Ellipi (talk) 10:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

What is clear, there are some historians suggesting that the Achaemenid dynasty was founded by Darius. They suggest that inscriptions asserting that Cyrus is an Achaemenid were engraved at the time of later Achaemenid kings. However, this is only one theory, and not all historians support this theory. Still most historian consider Cyrus, as the founder of the Achaemenid dynasty. Considering this fact, creating an entirely new article for Teispids looks like POV fork to me. At this point, I would rather merge this article with Achaemenids. In future, the first theory may gain more popularity among scholars, but at this point is the minority theory and do not need a separate article.--WIMYV? (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Please remove this nonsense-article
Teispids don't exist in any rational scientific literature, this is original research made by one Wiki editor based on minority scholar hypothesis. There is only one option - delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.191.41 (talk) 01:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Another option
Please note that many users & visitors are looking for information about new ideas & theories. Therefore if we convert the title of this article to "Teispids theory" (or such this words) it will be useful for users of wikipedia & it can be undeleted. (Maziargh Aug. 4, 2010. —Preceding undated comment added 06:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC).