Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samvel Karapetyan

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. Sandstein 06:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samvel Karapetyan

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

BLP article apparently on a random professional, without a trace of evidence of notability. Wikipedia isn't the white pages. Prod was removed for no reason in particular. dab (𒁳) 12:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of those cases where speedy deletion might be okay (BLP, no claim of notability) but AfD might end in no consensus because of WP:BEFORE. The Google search for the exact Armenian name turns up 27.000 results, quite a number of which are indeed about history of architecture. Expert needed to judge his influence. Alas, I cannot even read this apphabet so I will not give a verdict here. --Pgallert (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I also don't read Armenian, I checked a couple of dozen of those links randomly and they all seem to be about this article's Samvel Karapetian. "Samvel Karapetyan" in English also gets 15,500 results. I've just gone through every result in the first 5 pages and they almost all concerned this Samvel Karaperian. I would have thought such a check would have been the very first thing to do before making a RfD. dab, if you did such a check, how can you reconcile its result with this RfD? Meowy 17:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I daresay this is a speedy, already under BLP. But as I say, Cyclopia (talk · contribs) has made this a disputed prod[1] apparently for no other reason than that the existence of this person can be established by a google search. According to "inclusionists" liked Cyclopia, I must assume, the ultimate aim of Wikipedia must be to swallow facebook, and keep biography pages of literally everyone on the planet. --dab (𒁳) 14:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dab, would you kindly stop doing bad telepathy of me? Mocking other editors won't help your cause and does not make you funny -I don't think I have to remind an administrator of basics like WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. "Inclusionists" like me, simply, prefer a proper community discussion and a proper consideration of what the sources are, if there are, and possibly some "expert needed to judge his influence" as Pgallert correctly says above. I still have no idea if this is to be kept or not, but I hate the idea that someone just tags something with a PROD without even, for example, mentioning all the Gbooks hits that come out. If I tag myself as inclusionist is not at all because I want WP to become the new Facebook, is kind of a reaction to people deleting articles simply because they don't know or don't like what they're talking about -something that unfortunately happens all the days here. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment PROD was added because the rationale was "unreferenced BLP". I (mistankenly, I admit) took the external links as references, and for this reason I removed the PROD. However I would have done it the same after a few minuts of research on Gbooks and stuff. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's extremely difficult to find Armenian news in English but from the few sources I found he seems like a notable person. He's had good coverage, just from limited sources in English. I provided contextual quotes for the sources. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This person has no publications in any peer reviewed international scholarly literature. His only book with ISBN is published in Armenia. Not enough to deserve a standalone article. Grandmaster 05:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the book gets more notability if it's published in America rather than Armenia. He's won a big prize in Armenia for his work. Would he be more notable if he'd won the prize in the UK? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, systemic bias is in the room. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elephants! Herds of 'em! Meowy 16:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, a publication in international literature is more notable. This person is just another representative of Armenian nationalistic historiography. Some scholars of this sort such as Armen Ayvazyan are notable because they stirred international controversy, accusing the Western scholars of falsifying the Armenian history by the order of US State Department. But Karapetian is not notable even for that (at least for the time being). Grandmaster 11:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is the author of dozens of books (including many substantial academic books btw - not just pamphlets), lots of articles, maps, and is currently the head of an important ngo with branches in Armenia, USA, and Germany. He has been mentioned in numerous books and newspaper articles, and is important enough to have been interviewed and given press conferences countless times. Meowy 16:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is needed though is substantial improvement of the article, such as a listing of the many books he has authored, and some quotes from the sources that have mentioned him and interviewed him. But at least the absence of all that content proves that the article is not a self-publicity article, unlike many BLP articles. Meowy 17:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Foremost expert on topic. He is to Armenian architecture what Obama is to American politics. Djougha (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:01, 18 November 2009 (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.