Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahzada


 * 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   disambiguate.  MBisanz  talk 00:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Shahzada

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is not an english word. "Shahzadeh, simply is a persian word, meaning son of "Shah" or "Prince" and this is article is not notable at all. Existance of this article is not necessary as only "Shah" is well known in english language. Wikipedia is not a source of dictionary and perhaps if such explanations need to be given, they can be given under "Shah" and not here. Therefore deletion of this page is highly recommended as no useful information is given. Parvazbato59 (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Shah, surely. It's not usually appropriate to delete something outright if it would mean a plausible search term is a redlink.  In this case, Shahzada/Shahzadeh, as unfamiliar words that people might come across, are plausible search terms on Wikipedia.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  23:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I disagree greatly, this article absolutely must remain- in fact there is even an article for "shahzadi" with a stub to make it grow- that article can be merged with this one. Most importantly, shahzada is a unique title that has its own meaning, legalities, and history to it. Wikipedia has articles for Western noble titles, like "prince". There is no reason for Wikipedia not to have an article about a non-western title too. Moreover, this topic will grow over time, with history and added figures who were given the title due to diplomacy with the Shah- Therfore, it is not just a title for the Shah's family alone but for others not related by blood to the Shah as well. This article is very much like "Pasha"- a well developed article now- shahzada will also grow over time too. Just mark it as a stub for growth- that is all that needs to be done. There is also no way to merge it properly, you can't just stick it into "prince" because it has it own unique legalities nad rights and history to it, and you can't just stick it into Shah as well- just stub it and leave it, that's it.63.26.6.166 (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Shahzada is a unique title, there were Europeans through diplomatic service who were given title, just like there are Europeans who were given the title of "pasha", such as Hobart Pasha. You can fine someone like Jack Willam Longley Shahzada, a prince by diplomatic service, who is not related to the Shah of Iran. Absolutely keep it.Dmshistory (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is exactly my point: Shahzada is not a unique title and here is why. As you mentioned, we have words like "Shah" or "Pasha" but there is absolutely no need for the names such "the son of "Shah" at least in Wikipedia! In this case, we should start have words like, son of the son of Shah, and terms like wife of the Shah, and so on. Such words are not notable and can be given under the listing of "Shah".Parvazbato59 (talk) 03:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you are confused, Shahzada, is a title that has the roots of the word "shahzada" derived from words that mean "son of a shah", a more accurate translation is "brought forth of a shah" or "brought under a shah". There are also many applications of the title, not simply the shah's literal son, thoughit can be used that way in certain instances. The title was/is bestowed upon certain dignitaries- or diplomatic officials etc. You can't simply translate Shahzada as "the word for prince in persia" It is a title unique in itself to that particular culture- and applied in differnt ways, distinctive from how westerners used prince. It may be the photo and caption on the page that is throwing you off and giving the impression that Shahzada simpley is the princely son of the shah. It is more than that, what the article needs to do is grow, have more referencing, and describe its different applications. Stub it, and let it go, or get rid of the picture if that helps you, or if you feel that the caption is swaying the article in one direction.Dmshistory (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read texts carefully, respect users and do not use words like "confused" for other users as you may be equally confused. Application of the word, or the root of the word is not a concern here. There are many many many other words that can be listed and translated in depth, with so many applications in Wikipedia, but that does not mean we should have a separate "article" for them! Again, in discussions, instead of attacking the person, try to concentrate on the discussion and not divert from the discussion or attack the user by unimportant subjects. If you have any doubt in the meaning of "Shahzada", do not hesitate to do a little search about it and see what it means or even look at the article itself. In regard to the photo that is provided in this article that you claimed might have threw me off, this is off the subject and please do not do that in your discussions. You and I may disagree, but This page is for all users to vote, not just you to vote or me to talk. Thanks. Parvazbato59 (talk) 05:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Given the graphics on your personal page, defined by your intense devotion to Iranian subject matter, it seems that you may have chosen to focus too closely on this one article. If anything, Shahzadi would have been a more reasonable concern of merger, but that link was not even added to this page before this conversation started. You seem, truly objectively, to be to hung up on this one topic, and have chosen to focus on it too closely. Names like the "son of a son of the shah" were not political titles that were given out to high ranking dignitaries un-associated by blood to the Shah, but Shahzada was. Therefore, it is incorrect to view this page as simply a "dictionary definition of a word, where as other words could have eequally been defined on Wikipdia and never are". This is a page worthy to be developed like "Pasha" was. If it is merged into Shah of Iran, how can anyone in the future discuss effectly certain Shahzada who were not of blood-relation to the Shah- it would hrow off the structure of the page "Shah of Iran". In my opinion, there was never any reason to bring up a deletion flag for this topic, this page existed for a long time with no concern. Only now, after an image was added recently, do you seem to have gotten very concerned about this specific article's existence. I think people here are starting to get testy because it is obvious that you are the only one who has had a beef about this article, and it is you and you alone who has flagged this article- you are the one that has created this so-called "concern for deletion"- no one else has.63.26.21.136 (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please concentrate on the argument and subject. Just for your knowledge, this is not the only page that I have nominated for deletion and my reasons for deletion of this article are very clear and no need for further explanation. I even made a suggestion of merging this article with "Shah"'s article, If and only if some users believe this article is wroth keeping. This itself makes your argument invalid. Regards. Parvazbato59 (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand. This seems as legitimate a topic as Prince or Emir. (I know, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I think we can all agree that those are notable topics.) Pburka (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article simply needs some cleanup to be less "dictionary-ish" and expansion.  Eugene2x► talk 04:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect/merge to Shah unless it can be expanded into a proper article. Right now it's not. NVO (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with redirecting it to "Shah" as this article already exists under shah as you mentioned! So there is no point of having such a short and separate article. Parvazbato59 (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep -- restore to a version when this was a disambiguation page. About three months ago someone tried to change this from a disambiguation page to an article about the princely title.  This change was, IMO, poorly advised.  I am curious as to why our nominator didn't check the article's revision history, prior to making the nomination.  Geo Swan (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I did check everything and that is why I am asking for a deletion. Please do not just make an assumption and focuse on the subject rather that a person. I have given my reasons above and I do not think I should repeat them. Please read them. Other users and I have also suggested the best article that it can merge with, in case it was hard to notice. Regards Parvazbato59 (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am glad to hear you think you adequately checked the article's revision history. For three years this article was a disambiguation page.  For just three months it was devoted to the Persian equivalent of the Dauphin of France, the Prince of Wales or the Tsarevitch.  Given that you did check the revision history I remain mystified as to why you are not addressing the disambiguation issue.  I remain mystified as to why you are not recognizing the concerns I have expressed about redirection to section heading being deeply broken.  Geo Swan (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Should there be a separate article, like shahzada (son of a shah)? I regard the arguments advanced above that this could be covered adequately in the article Shah to be weak.  We have articles on Dauphin of France, Crown prince, Tsesarevich and Prince of Wales.  Redirection to a subsection of another article is deeply flawed.  Our underlying wikimedia software does not adequately support wikilinks where the link's target is not a full article.  The "what links here" feature is not supported for links to sections of an article.  If the subsection's heading is edited, even completely trivial changes to spelling, capitalization or punctuation, breaks the link.  And the good faith editors who make those changes can't detect when their edits will cause chaoas.  Geo Swan (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have encountered the suggestion that articles should be merged and redirected to a subsection of another article enough times that I wrote an essay in response: redirection to subsection heading is deeply broken -- Geo Swan (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Our nominator has noted they suggested redirecting  shahzada  to  shah .  I am disappointed that our nominator's review of the revision history did not show them that the first three edits were three different redirections, to prince of the blood, Prince and Shah.  I suggest that the first three contributors being unable to agree where this term should be redirected is a strong clue that redirection was a bad solution.  Geo Swan (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I reverted back to when this was a disambiguation page. I explained why on the talk page.  Whether there should be a page for Shahzada (princely title), corresponding to Tsarevitch and other similar princely titles as a separate, and frankly less important question than whether there should be a disambiguation page.  Geo Swan (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2009 (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.