Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahnama theory


 * 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.  Citi Cat   ♫ 15:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Shahnama theory

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This "theory" appears to have been made on Wikipedia. A Google search supports the view that this was created on Wikipedia and was copied elsewhere. So, this should be deleted because it is complete OR... even if it miraculously isn't, then it an utterly non-notable "theory." The Behnam 16:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'm not even sure what "theory" this article is trying to puth forth. In any case, it's completely unreferenced and transparently OR.  /Blaxthos 17:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above -- total OR job, no idea what it's even about. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 19:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Maybe the name "Shahnama theory" is made up, and I don't know how notable the story is, but the article lists the reference for the story: Henry Bird, "Chess History and Reminiscences". The biography at Henry Bird has a link to the book, http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/4902 where the whole book is online, including the quote which can be seen at http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/chshr10.txt (395 KB) in the section "THE THREE INDIAN TRADITIONS". PrimeHunter 02:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Show me an outside reference, and I'll change my vote. Chengwes 07:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. A Google search on Shahnama chess shows many mentions of the story. Maybe the article just needs a rename and some editing, but I don't want to do it. I have listed the AfD at WikiProject Chess. PrimeHunter 12:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * General reply - I'm not saying that there was no chess story in Shahnameh. There certainly was, and that is what the quote from that book is about.  What I'm saying is that there is no concept attached to the story called "Shahnama theory"... apparently that is some Wikipedian's personal take on the story. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Behnam (talk • contribs).
 * Comment. I agree that the name "Shahnama theory" is bad. If the article stays then it should be renamed. PrimeHunter 23:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Origins of chess (in shortened form, and maybe move the resulting redirect to better title). It may be notable enough for own article if somebody searches and adds good sources. Otherwise, mention in Origins of chess. PrimeHunter 23:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there is no such "theory"... making a section about "Shahnama theory" in Origins of Chess won't solve the problem. The Behnam 16:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean mention the story in Origins of Chess without calling it a "theory". PrimeHunter 17:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * merge to Origins of Chess. A well known story if not by this name. JoshuaZ 19:12, 1 August 2007 (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.