Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naser al-Din Shah's slide


 * 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   keep.  MBisanz  talk 00:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Naser al-Din Shah&
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article full of citation needed facts indicating clearly that it's mostly original research. There might be some passing mentions of this in some sources but overall it does not appear notable. Only reliable sources are either off-topic or barely related. A lot of "supposedly"'s, "there's no evidence but...", "allegedly"'s etc. Basically the article is crap and likely to stay that way.  Volunteer Marek  03:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 30.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  03:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge useful text, if any, to Fat′h-Ali Shah Qajar. Redirect to Fat′h-Ali Shah Qajar. Nothing here constitutes its own article. Fails WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 06:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I found quite a number of sources in English, and my understanding is that this is a well known item in Iran/Persia, where it is a part of popular culture, being a kind of symbol of "old" Persian sensual court-culture. As I don't speak Persian, sources in Persian are not accessible to me, so I have to accept on good faith that the editor who added them (user:مانفی) is accurately repeating their content. Someone has added a lot of very silly "citation needed" tags to content that is not in dispute (though some are legitimate). Deleting this would serve no purpose, since it provides access in English to an interesting aspect of Persian history that is still commonly referenced in Iran. BTW, it is simply false to say that the article is full of "supposedly"s and "there is no evidence but". There is one "supposed" (in a picture caption) which precisely conforms to the cited statements, and there is also "There is no evidence that they were used by other kings of this dynasty. Nonetheless, this type of slide has come to be known as 'Naser al-Din Shah's slide'[citation needed] or the 'Naserian slide.'[citation needed]." Also, its seems a bit ridiculous to complain that the article uses the very language that scholars themselves do, when saying there is no evidence that other Shahs used it. The names refer to how it is known in Iran. The ridiculous two "citation needed" tags are proof of the absurdity of this kind of manic citation tagging, which IMO is usually a sign that the tagger has some sort of emotional response to the content. In fact the statements are cited to the book footnoted at the end of the paragraph. The last section simply describes events depicted in films. It has been long accepted that descriptions of the plots of films, novels etc do not need citations, as the items themselves are the evidence. Paul B (talk) 12:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note, it appears that this has become an issue because of the infantile ravings here to which I have responded on the article talk page. User:مانفی, who created the article, also created a drawing purporting to depict the slide, which has caused a dispute on Commons. This seems to be a confused response to the failure to delete the drawing rather more than the article. Paul B (talk) 13:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 *  I found quite a number of sources in English - then why aren't they in the article? The ones that are in the article are barely relevant or make allusions to the subject only in passing. This suggests that this is a prime candidate for deletion, with any useful info merged to Fat′h-Ali Shah Qajar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs) 19:52, 30 November 2012
 * They are - though not all of them, since there is no point in just repeating material sourced to several different texts. Paul B (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge useful text, if any, per Binksternet. If you remove the unsourced assertions and original research, all that is left is a few passing and mutually contradictory references to legends of the Shah's cavorting with concubines. Andreas JN 466 16:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The above editor is the "citation needed" tagger mentioned. There is no original research and there is nothing "contradictory" or legendary about the stories regarding the slide, except in the sense that it has acquired a "legend" in the original meaning of the word - and that's exactly why it is notable. Variations in a story are not the same as contradictions. These assertions are simply false. BTW, Persian Wikipedia has had an article on this subject since 2010. And, of course, even if it were legendary (which it isn't), that would not be a reason to delete, otherwise we'd have to delete Excalibur. Paul B (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Paul and oppose merge. This isn't a BLP, it can stand without a few citations.  The movie, Once Upon a Time, Cinema, demonstrates that this was notable at least when the movie was written in 1992.  Wikipedia has a recentism bias and sources are not likely going to be found online.  However, if it was notable in 1992 enough to be written into a movie, then it is notable now.--v/r - TP 19:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Something being mentioned in a movie does not make it notable. Wikipedia isn't a list of "...in popular culture" trivia. Oh wait...  Volunteer Marek   19:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, being mentioned in a movie goes quite a bit of a ways to making something notable. If a device that was used prior to 1925 was in a movie in 1992, that shows lasting impact (notability).  It was (keyword) noted in a film 70+ years later.--v/r - TP 19:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You realize that movies contain a lot of "mentions" of a lot stuff, right? By itself, especially when the info can be accommodated by a merge, that means nothing.  Volunteer Marek   02:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If someone mentioned balloon boy in a movie this year, then think nothing of it. If something that is 70+ years old gets mentioned in a movie, it's a sign that that thing has lasting notability.  It was noted 70+ years later.  Our guidelines are what determine an "assumption of notability".  Read them, everyone of them uses a version of 'assume'.  This thing being in a movie 70+ years later is real world notability.  We no longer have to assume it's relevance 100 years later.  We are at the 100 year later point and it's still noted.  That makes it--notable.--v/r - TP 03:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Once Upon a Time, Cinema is an Iranian comedy fantasy film with a surrealist, dream-like plot that is available on YouTube here. The "slide" scene is at time code 31:50. The slide in the film is not actually part of a bath ... if it indeed references Fat′h-Ali Shah Qajar's slide, a source saying so would be nice. I couldn't find one. Andreas JN 466 06:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * TParis, what does that mean, "it can stand without a few citations"? Does that mean it is now okay if Wikipedia simply makes up historical information, even in the absence of historical sources? Just to give an example of how this article was made, here is what one of the cited sources (Ervand Abrahamian in A History of Modern Iran) says:
 * In yet another article Dehkhoda managed even to overreach himself. He wrote that since he had stopped his column in Sur-e Esrafil lately, he was about to be sick, because, as the Persian expression has it, "stopping a habit results in sickness." And he went on to add that he would have taken ill, just as Fath'ali Shah would have done if every day he did not lie with his back down beneath the slide in the Negaristan Palace, alluding to the legend that Fath'ali did so every day naked so that his wives would slide down naked over him.
 * So this is a passing mention of a legend in a completely different context. The article spins this out into the following:
 * Fat′h-Ali Shah, who had about 1000 concubines, allegedly built several in different parts of Iran. It was said that the Shah lay on his back awaiting each concubine: "Fath'ali did so every day naked so that his wives would slide down naked over him."[2] Referring to the story, the Iranian linguist Ali-Akbar Dehkhoda once joked that if he stopped writing he would feel ill because "as the Persian expression has it 'stopping a habit results in sickness'," adding that "he would have taken ill just as Fath'ali Shah would have done if every day he did not lie with his back down beneath the slide in the Negaristan Palace."[2]
 * That's more words than the source has. Key assertions like the one that this is a "structure in the form of a playground slide which was used by Persian kings of the Qajar dynasty as a sex device in their harem." or "It became an emblem of the sensuality of the Shah's court" or that there were many such slides that were only destroyed comparatively recently or that this sort of thing is known as a "Naserian slide" are completely unsourced, and limited to Wikipedia. That's not historical scholarship, that's making things up out of whole cloth. Cinema films are not historical sources: we don't write Spartacus based on what Kirk Douglas says and does in the film. What we in fact have are a very small number of passing mentions that this Shah had a pool and a slide, and that he and his concubines used it and had fun with it. That's perfectly safely housed in the article on the Shah in question. Until there is evidence that this topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources, addressing it directly and in detail, it should not have an article here per WP:GNG. So if you want to make a case for Keep, show me the sources, but don't tell me that it's okay to make things up in Wikipedia. Andreas JN 466 03:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have already replied to this point about the use of the word "legend", here, and on the talk page of the article. You can of course reword it if you think you can do so more precisely. There are as you know multiple sources for this story. I have also already replied to the claims you are making about the name given to the slide. It's sourced to the Persian book (and is also supported by the popular cultural usage in film). Maybe the editor who added these claims about other slides and the destruction under Reza Shah was lying about the source, but we have no reason to say so (and indeed it would be entirely consistent with Reza Shah's policies and his view expressed in Mission for my Country, his own book about his life and aims). Your comment about Spartacus is just absurd. No film is being used as a source of factual information (though one of the two films mentioned is actually a BBC documentary!). Paul B (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have managed to get a translation of the source, which does indeed say what user:مانفی claimed it said. Needless to say, there is now overwhelming evidence that the slide was popularly associated with Naser al-Din Shah, as that is how it appears in novels, memoirs and movies. This may be "inaccurate", but that's beside the point, as you should know, per WP:NAME (and has already been discussed here). I have my own thoughts about why this association probably occurred, but at the moment all that can be sourced is the fact that it did. Paul B (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for proving my point. Wikipedia suffers from an internet sources-bias.  This thing is 100+ years old.  It's not going to be found with a google search like Hallie Barry's custody case.--v/r - TP 15:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Stop talking nonsense. For one, we have several Victorian sources cited (they tend to be in Google Books, because they're out of copyright), and secondly, are you really going to tell me that the fact that there aren't any substantial sources proves that the thing is notable? Thanks for providing some merriment. Andreas JN 466 15:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Good argument, Jayen466. If Ervand Abrahamian does not give the item much ink, and a Google book search turns up only passing mention, then we have not satisfied WP:GNG. In my search (which I did not bother to mention before), I found "Six Months in Persia" by Edward Stack in 1882, in which he says: "In the sardaba or underground chambers of the Nigaristan palace in Teheran City, where Fath Ali Shah used to disport himself with his ladies in the heat of the summer day, one can still see, and, if he chooses, slide down, the sursura, or shoot of white marble, rubbed smooth by the white limbs of of that gracious monarch's many wives, as they used to come gliding into his royal arms. It is an inclined plane, down which one shoots with considerable velocity in a sitting posture, to plunge (if not stopped) into a marble tank at the foot. I solemnly slid down it, in riding-boots and spurs, feeling that I but inadequately represented the spirit of the place." Stack's piece is also reviewed and quoted in the Literary World magazine the same year. There's also a brief description in Around the World on a Bicycle published in the mid-1880s by Thomas Stevens (cyclist) who elaborates about the amazing aspects of one of the summer palaces of Fatteh-Ali Shah in the northeast quarter of Tehran. He continues: "...and then we go to see the most novel feature of the garden—Fatteh-Ali Shah's marble slide, or shute. Passing along a sloping, arched vault beneath a roof of massive marble, we find ourselves in a small, subterranean court, through which a stream of pure spring water is flowing along a white marble channel, and where the atmosphere must be refreshingly cool even in the middle of summer. In the centre of the little court is a round tank about four feet deep, also of white marble, which can be filled at pleasure with water, clear as crystal, from the running stream. Leading from an upper chamber, and overlapping the tank, is a smooth-worn marble slide or shute, about twenty feet long and four broad, which is pitched at an angle that makes it imperative upon any one trusting themselves to attempt the descent, to slide helplessly into the tank. Here, on summer afternoons, with the chastened daylight peeping through the stained-glass window in the roof, and carpeting the white marble floor with rainbow hues, with the only entrance to the cool and massive marble court guarded by armed retainers, who while guarding it were conscious of guarding their own precious lives, Fattehali Shah was wont to beguile the hours away by making merry with the bewitching nymphs of his anderoom [harem apartments], transforming them for the nonce into naiads." Despite the logorrhea of Stevens, I cannot conclude that the slide is notable by itself. The sources discuss other interesting characteristics of the palace including the doors, windows, flooring, etc. We are not going to write articles about each one of these! If someone were to write an article about the Negarestan Palace or Nigarestan Palace of Tehran then the slide would of course be included. Until then, the slide should be mentioned in relation to the shah who built it: Fat′h-Ali Shah Qajar. I continue to think the article should be merged and redirected. Binksternet (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is a truly terrible argument. We should redlink the palace article from the one about the slide, and hope someone starts building it.  There should not be editors in chief here - nobody telling the editor "you can't write about this, until you write all about that." Wnt (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: If you want to find sources, the thing to look for is "Fath-Ali Shah" slide. This brings up less than a dozen relevant search results in Google Books: . All of these are passing mentions that say that Fat'h Ali Shah had a marble bath or pool with a slide, in the form of an inclined marble plane, and that his women would slide down it and into his arms. None of these sources calls this "Naser al-Din Shah's slide", and none of them calls this piece of sloping floor a "sex device", for crying out loud. The story has a mention in Fat′h-Ali Shah Qajar, where it belongs. (Perhaps someone might like to create an article on the no longer extant Nigaristan Palace; the baths could be mentioned there as well. But please note that the palace was not primarily notable for the slide in its baths, and any Wikipedia article should mention some of its other noteworthy features ...) Andreas JN 466 05:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The source that refers to it by that name, as I have noted, is in Persian, according to the editor who added it. And that's what the Persian language article is called. It is also how it appears in the films (at the court of Naser al-Din Shah). I presume that it is called that because it became linked to stories about that Shah. Per WP:NAME we use the most common name. BTW, one of the two films is a BBC-produced documentary. As for "sex device", that's just a phrase. It seems quite a reasonable one given the story, but change it to "used for erotic purposes" or some such if you think that's more accurate. Paul B (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is it worth pointing out that the creator of this article had, as his first few edits, category changes by HotCat? I will donate $50 to the wikimedia foundation if there isn't a recent-ish porn movie out that features such a fantasy slide. I will triple it if it wasn't the original author's direct intention to add a link to individuals or companies involved in that film.101.118.18.100 (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's difficult to prove a negative. Who's going to watch all those "recentish porn movies" to find out? Seriously, paranoid fantasies are not arguments. The original article dates from 2010 on Persian Wikipedia. This one was originally a translation, created probably to showcase the idiotic drawing which, ironically has been kept (in three versions!) on Commons. When I looked for sources, it seemed to me that it was - just - notable and that it was of interest in the context of Persian popular history. I only wish I could access Persian language sources. Paul B (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are the edits of user:مانفی, mostly about universities and pharmacutical companies . There is no evidence of any connection whatever to "porn movies", recent or otherwise. I assume that the $150 donation will be very soon received by the foundation. Paul B (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources linked by Jayen466. Discussed in multiple WP:RS = meets WP:GNG. -- Cycl o pia talk  00:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sources don't establish the slide's notability just because they mention the slide somewhere.  Are we going to have separate articles for the ceiling and floor as well, by this reasoning?  And Jayen466's sources definitely do not describe the slide as a sex device, and it seems that the article is here primarily to promote the idea that the slide is a sex device. Ken Arromdee (talk) 04:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If the article misrepresents the device, this can be dealt with editing, not deletion. If people prefer to merge it, I'm fine with it as well. -- Cycl o pia talk  09:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per Cyclopia and Paul Barlow.  Note that problems with poor sourcing do not impact a topic's notability as long as some independent RS's exist.  Also note "citation needed" is less persuasive when it is spattered all over an article by the person demanding its deletion, including in places where inline citations may simply have been seen as unnecessary, such as on sentences within a paragraph that is cited at its end, or in the lead paragraph summary, especially when it is troublesome for editors to hunt down the offline sources.  I oppose merging the content because the article makes clear that Naser al-Din Shah is only one of the kings associated with it. Wnt (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources aren't enough to establish notability (the slide just gets a passing mention in them), *and* they are poor *as well* (they don't say what the article claims, which is that it's a sexual device). Those are two separate problems. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "The sources" and the folks !voting delete have only checked online sources. Offline (books, remember those?) take longer to search through because there isn't a Google to search through.  We don't delete articles because we haven't found better sources yet.  The age of this device and the fact that it's mentioned 200 years later (it was noted in a movie) means it is notable (a derivative of noted.  The fact that it was noted means it is capable of being noted...hence we get notable).  We don't need guidelines to help us find a "presumption" of notability, we have it established in the real world already.  Being mentioned in a movie 200 years later is 100x better than meeting out notability criteria.  Our criteria are used to determine if something today will be noted in 100 years.  In this case, we know that something 200 years ago was noted today.  Thus, guidelines arn't needed to presume notability, we have factual evidence that it already was noted.  How does no one else get that?  Ya'all need to step out of the written policy and see their intentions and meaning.  Why else do you think uses "presumed"?  The reason "presumed" is in there is we can't know what will be noted in 100 years, that's why we have guidelines.  In this case, we are already at the 100 year later point and this thing was noted.  It's notable.--v/r - TP 16:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would dearly like to be able to access sources in Persian to find out how well known this really is in Iran, and how it is normally referred to. As for the complaint that it is not a "sex device", if you don't like that phrase, change it to a better one. Since it was used as part of an sexual 'game' it doesn't seem an inappropriate expression. If having a series of naked women slide down on you isn't sexual, then I don't know what is. Since it's a device to make that happen.... Paul B (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't delete articles because we haven't found better sources? Of course we do (for some values of "better").  Notability depends on coverage in reliable sources.  No sources with coverage means no notability means we delete the article.
 * Edit: And just being mentioned 100 years later isn't enough. William Shakespeare's hat is still mentioned hundreds of years later.  But it wouldn't qualify for an article because it's only mentioned in connection with Shakespeare and although it's mentioned, not many things are said about it. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Except there are sources. Quite a few. Paul B (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And there is a difference between "no sources exist" and "no sources are online."--v/r - TP 23:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to have had a lot of sex. Having a great number of women drop on your member from a great height (note sources saying that the slide was so steep as to ensure you'd hit the pool at some velocity) is not likely to be sexually pleasurable, but rather more likely to result in a painfully crushed dick and balls. Women have pelvic bones ... Honestly, man, get a grip. I am sure the Shah and his concubines frolicked. People fuck in swimming pools and jacuzzis. That does not make swimming pools, jacuzzis and their furniture "sex devices". Andreas  JN 466 09:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. This slide is not a sex device. Instead, it is an amusement device deep within the shah's summer palace, where he can play with the women from his harem. He could catch one of his wives in an embrace at the bottom but not spear her on his member; not without subsequent surgery to repair the royal rod. Binksternet (talk) 09:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "You don't seem to have had a lot of sex." What an utterly infantile remark, which, sadly, seems quite typical. However, I will readily admit that I have not had sex with a string of women sent to me down a slide. I suspect you may not have either. You are evidently still confusing the silly drawing with the article. I've no idea what exactly happened, or whether sex occurred before entering the pool, but it was clearly sexual, and in any case how many time does it have to be repeated before it gets into your head - it doesn't matter whether it is called a "sex device" or something else. That's a trivial phrase, utterly irrelevant to the central issue of notability Change it if you like. Paul B (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is why we don't do original research on Wikipedia, and why saying "I'm really experienced" isn't a license to do it either. We don't do original research to add to articles and we should not do original research to delete them!  Wnt (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We do delete original research though, and that's what this unsourced "sex device" nonsense is. I thought our articles were supposed to be based on verifiable sources, rather than an overheated sexual imagination. Andreas JN 466 17:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, categorizing it as a "sex toy" is over the top, unless you're going to put car seat in that category, and of course the presidential cigar. I checked to make sure.  In Wikipedia categorization, a cigar is just a cigar. Wnt (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Phew. :) Thanks, those are good examples. Andreas JN 466 15:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey fella, you were the one who said "If having a series of naked women slide down on you isn't sexual, then I don't know what is. Since it's a device to make that happen ..." So the confusion between the drawing and the article seems mainly in your head, and the article is still calling the thing a "sex device". It's a swimming pool slide, for God's sake, like you can find in thousands of municipal swimming pools ... Andreas JN 466 17:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment This article (seemingly phantastic) now has a number of sources. However, I am dubious whehter the subject is really notable by itself.  I consider that the right course would be to merge it into Nigarestan Palace, but unfortuantely, we do not have such an article.  Is there a Farsi WP? Does that have such an article? If so, can it be transalated?  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a Farsi Wiki. My Persian is non-existant, but I think this may be the article: . BTW, several of the "uncited" statements complained of in fact come from the Farsi/Persian Darioush Shahbazi source. Paul B (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So we are relying on some dude's website? A dude (Darioush Shahbazi) that is not mentioned in a single book in Google Books? Who doesn't have a single mention in Google Scholar? Look, if this slide is so notable for an article on its own, you should be able to point us to multiple quality reliable sources treating the subject in detail. Handwaving of the "oh, this is the sort of topic where sources would be offline" kind, without naming those sources (author, title, publisher, page number, that sort of thing ...) won't do. If you believe this thing is notable, the onus is on you to prove it, not on us to prove that it isn't. Andreas JN 466 09:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about Shahbazi, but I've already said I think it is marginally notable with accessible sources. The other Persian-language source used is the Hassan Azad book. I recently created an article on Franz Josef Heinz. All I could find were "passing mentions" of a few lines in English. Neverheless, I'd be astounded if anyone denied his notability, and we have the advantage that online searching is a lot easier as there are no problems with non-Western script, with poor access to even online sources and multiple name/word spelling transliterations. Paul B (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Andreas, so you mean to tell me that you couldn't find information on a Persian in an English Google Scholar search? How odd.--v/r - TP 14:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, Google Scholar contains sources in all sorts of languages. Including Persian, with author names in Roman script. Secondly, any Iranian historian worth his salt would at least have a mention somewhere. As it is, all we know is that some dude somewhere has a website. Andreas JN 466 17:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Since the AFD started, I have added quite a number of sources. I have no doubt there are many more to be found. I have also reworded some passages in the light of some criticisms. It seems obvious to me that this object was widely commented on by western visitors as a symbol of "Persian" decadence during the reign of Naser al-Din Shah (which is almost certainly why it came to be associated with his name rather than Fat'h-Ali Shah's), and that because of this it became an embarrassment to reformers in Iran: hence the destruction of the palace by Reza Shah. The story retains circulation in Iran and crops up in tales about the court and old Tehran. It's a story that epitomises the change in attitudes from erotic images of "oriental" seraglios to the puritan values of modern Iran (which of course we all prefer so much!). I very very much doubt that the notability of this would even have been questioned if it weren't for the fact that the topic is linked to SEX. The subject seems to produce near-hysterical reactions in some editors. This is most obvious in the bizarre claims added by 101.118.18.100, but also the playground taunts about having sex, the pruriant obsession with what exactly happened at the bottom of the slide etc. Can't we just deal with this as an interesting topic that happens to give an insight into changing attitudes to Iran and within Iran? On a personal note, I followed this up after the initial brouhaha about the drawing because I found that the research was giving me insights into Iranian culture. Surely we have to judge on the basic question: is having the article useful to readers? Surely it is, for the reasons I have given. Paul B (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This article has an English name that you guys have made up, and that cannot be found in a single English-language source except Wikipedia and its mirrors and derivatives. You're inventing an encyclopedia keyword that no published author has ever used. Doesn't that worry you? And who exactly is going to look for an English keyword that has never appeared in writing before Wikipedia? Andreas JN 466 17:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh please, who are "you guys"? It has the title that the original uploader gave it and which he stated was the name by which it is commonly known in Iran. He did a Google search in Persian to support this. Again, this wouldn't be controversial were it not that you want to make it so. Of course it would be a great help is Persian speakers could confirm the results of such a search. Paul B (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Paul Barlow and TParis.-- В и к и  T  15:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG. Merging into Fat′h-Ali Shah Qajar is a bad idea; the slide is already covered by a sentence there, and much more than that would give it undue weight. I feel the sex template at the bottom isn't especially appropriate though. --Avenue (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.