The result was delete. Perhaps this would be a useful redirect to Taj Mahal: The True Story (book), but there's no consensus here, so I leave that to the interested editors.-- Kubigula ( talk) 03:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Per WP:Fringe, WP:FORK and WP:UNDUE - the P.N. Oak theory can never be effectively supported "in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory" - Stephen Knapp isn't a reliable or independent source. It's an interesting idea - but without any academically accepted evidence it must remain a theory. An [ RFC] has already been held to determine the weight that the idea should be given on the Taj Mahal article - this, and the Taj Mahal: The True Story (book) article both represent POV forking Joopercoopers ( talk) 11:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Perhaps this would be a useful redirect to Taj Mahal: The True Story (book), but there's no consensus here, so I leave that to the interested editors.-- Kubigula ( talk) 03:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Per WP:Fringe, WP:FORK and WP:UNDUE - the P.N. Oak theory can never be effectively supported "in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory" - Stephen Knapp isn't a reliable or independent source. It's an interesting idea - but without any academically accepted evidence it must remain a theory. An [ RFC] has already been held to determine the weight that the idea should be given on the Taj Mahal article - this, and the Taj Mahal: The True Story (book) article both represent POV forking Joopercoopers ( talk) 11:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply