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
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
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]
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]
