Talk:Teispids

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Ancient Near East Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Iran Top‑importance

	Iran portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reason for disputed tag?

What is the reason for adding a disputed tag? Ellipi (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

File:Cyrus cilinder.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Cyrus cilinder.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]