Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davidkhanian Mansion


 * 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 no consensus. Per relatively low participation here for all of these articles, closing with no prejudice against speedy renomination of each article as standalone discussions (having only one discussion for each separate article). North America1000 13:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Davidkhanian Mansion

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This is a series of articles about the Davidkhanian family created by now blocked editor. They are a mess. Most of the articles' text has little to do with the actual subject of the article itself. The images are all nominated for deletion because the tags were false.

The sourcing is highly questionable, at best. Nearly everything of substance in several of the articles appears to be derived from the Alice Navasargian book Immortals, which is self-published and not reliable. (See page 9 for confirmation of self publishing).

If any of these subjects are notable, we would be best served by deleting these articles and starting over. agt x 18:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete all There is not enough sourcing to justify any of these.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I just looked at one of the articles Alexander Khan Setkhanian, seems like it has adequate amount of sources to have its own article. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * But did you look at the references? Nearly all of the supporting references for sentences about the subject of the article (as opposed to general propositions about history) are from the self published Navasargian book. The citations to the Zia-Ebrahimi piece are likewise forged. The article is a short book review that does not support any of the statements it's cited for. agt x  16:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   05:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Nominating all of these together was a mistake imo. Several of the subjects do appear to be notable, and the articles all contain multiple published sources besides the self-published book. The nominator has not made a convincing case that these other sources do not demonstrate notability in any of the articles. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you help me understand which sources you're looking that support notability? Not all of the sources are readily available, but there is a serious forgery problem here (see explanation of Zia-Ebrahimi piece above). If there are particular ones you find convincing, I will try to track them down. agt x  21:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is that the book by Zia Ebhrahimi contains much information about the family, while the article in the historical review about the book is a mis-citation meant to cite the book itself. The citation should be changed to the book. 169.232.70.99 (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC) — 169.232.70.99 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.