Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Achaemenid Kingdom

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. The only "keep" rationale is "If there was a series of named kings, there was a kingdom", and that is textbook WP:OR. Everybody else is against keeping the article, but it's unclear whether a redirect is merited; that remains up to editors to figure out. Sandstein 05:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Achaemenid Kingdom[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no such thing as an "Achaemenid kingdom" distinct from the later Achaemenid Empire; a description of the latter's predecessor is already done more correctly by Anshan (Persia)#Cradle of Achaemenid Persia. The creator based the entire idea on the Encyclopaedia Iranica, but the entry in question is just a family history that is out of date with modern research. The article itself barely describes a kingdom at all, it's just a low-effort collection of genealogical details copied over from primary sources like Cyrus Cylinder#Text and Behistun Inscription#Lineage, or other wikipedia articles like Achaemenid dynasty.

Prod endorsed by TenPoundHammer, and removed by DGG with the reasoning 'valid article, possible merge available' despite that I had explicitly pointed out the factual and sourcing problems in the prod. Avilich (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is nothing worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have better coverage of this topic based on more recent scholarship elsewhere, and this naming convention is not standard.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly redirect to Empire. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there was a series of named kings, there was a kingdom. DGG ( talk ) 07:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Achaemenid Empire or Achaemenid dynasty. Still a valid search term as clicking the REF search at the top of the AFD shows various universities refer to the "Achaemenid Kingdom". Dream Focus 12:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing to save. T8612 (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The early, pre-imperial Achaemenid state (or "kingdom of Anshan") is a valid topic. Redirect either to the empire article or the dynasty if the material is redundant. Readers, however, are poorly served if we have articles on kings and none on their kingdom, which would be the case. Factual and sourcing problems are fixable and Iranica is RS. I don't see grounds for deletion here. Srnec (talk) 04:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Readers, however, are poorly served if we have articles on kings and none on their kingdom Are you paying attention? We do have an article on the latter, I just linked to it. The grounds for deletion is WP:Verifiability. The material isn't just redundant, it's incorrect; and RSes can become obsolete, as the particular entry of the Iranica cited here has. The kings listed here weren't Achaemenids, and so any idea of an "Achaemenid kingdom" or a "pre-imperial Achaemenid state" is a thing of the creator's imagination and your own. Avilich (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you? You state that the material is more correct at Anshan and that the kings listed here weren't Achaemenids... but the Anshan article says that Anshan fell under Persis Achaemenid rule in the 7th century BC, having been captured by Teispes. Even the article Teispids calls them a branch of the Achaemenids. Moreover, if the theory that Cyrus the Great had no relation with Achaemenes is true, then he wasn't an Achaemenid either! Certainly the empire we call Achaemenid was created by one of a line of kings of Anshan and that which I called a "pre-imperial Achaemenid state" was quite real, whatever you want to call it. I do not propose that we continue to call it the "Achaemenid Kingdom". In fact, the Teispid article, to which Anshanite Kingdom redirects, is the article I'm talking about. I just didn't know we had it already. Srnec (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Cyrus wasn't an Achaemenid. The other articles are wrong on that too, but those can be improved, whereas this one can't, because its sole purpose is to repeat the mistakes of the others. There are currently 3 articles dedicated to pre-550 BC Persia: Anshan (Persia), Teispids, and "Achaemenid kingdom". The last one is useless and incorrect, and should be deleted. Avilich (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.