Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hormizd V

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 redirect to Farrokh Hormizd. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hormizd V

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

There are no sources that this guy is actually an historical figure. There was no Hormizd V living during that period. There is a confusion between Hormizd V and Hormizd VI. The real Hormizd V is actually Hormizd VI, who is the same person as Farrokh Hormizd and who lived during a different period. I suggest that this article should be deleted and i will rename Hormizd VI to Hormizd V and merge it with Farrokh Hormizd. Here is the source about it[1] (go to page 205). HistoryofIran (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Farrokh Hormizd. The nom's source seems authoritative and I can't find evidence of a claim that Hormizd V is anyone else. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which do you mean? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About Hormizd V. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well sometimes there are competing claims, one historian may claim X is Y, another historian X is really Z. But don't see that here, the sources point to Farrokh Hormizd being Hormizd V without controversy. There is some ambiguity due to lack of evidence but that can be explained in the article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect It is high time we end slavish reliance on a more than 100 year old encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2013 (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.