Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mihran

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 House of Mihran. WP:V is not negotionable. But this redirect should allow editors to add any material that they are able to source to the target article and continue working from there. Sandstein 19:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mihran[edit]

The references offered for this don't cut the mustard. The first one is very vague without enough information to know where to look for it. The other two are both searchable with Google Books, the Wilcox book not getting any hits when I search for "Mihran" within it, and the only possibly relevant information from the Farrokh book is that "the post of Savaran Sardar was held by a member of the Mihran-Pahlav family during Julian's invaasion in 362". That's not enough to support the existence of this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence for notability - in fact little evidence for the existence of the subject. dougweller (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable as per Phil Bridger. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historic figure. Needs refs to be fixed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historic figure. Needs refs to be fixed but I have the Sassian empire (224-651) and it said the same as the artical so lets not delete.Shahshah39 (talk) 09:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could you please supply details of that source (author, publisher, year of publication, page numbers, ISBN if applicable) for verifiability purposes? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentStill no verifiable sources, the two sources added don't seem to actually deal with the subject. If editors want to claim that there should be an article on someone with this name, we really should have some reliable sources that back them up. dougweller (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can search The Cambridge History of Iran, which is one of the references added to the article. It mentions the family named Mihran but not any specific individual with that name. Ditto East Rome, Sasanian Persia and the End of Antiquity, no mention of the name when searched. More luck at The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars [1] - but none of them seem to be our Mihran. I would really like to know why none of the 5 references added don't seem to mention the subject of the article. It suggests a need to see if this situation is repeated it other articles created or edited by this editor. dougweller (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Mihran" is actually neither a personal nor a family name, but a title (at least, that's what Procopius says). Roman historians commonly confused Persian titles with proper names, which is why one can find several "Mihrans" during the Roman-Sassanid wars. For instance, there is a Mihran (Μιρράνης in Greek) also during the Anastasian War [2] and, of course, Firouz, the Persian commander at Battle of Dara, is mentioned as a Μιρράνης.[3] In light of this, I vote for keep, provided that its meaning is clarified. The article could then be used to list those commanders mentioned simply as "Mihran" (without other names that would distinguish them). Constantine ✍ 19:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Great opportunity for a content dispute maybe? This source [4] says it is "the name, not of an office, but a family." dougweller (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is indeed weird. Procopius is quite explicit: Πέρσης ἀνὴρ, μιρράνης μὲν τὸ ἀξίωμα (οὕτω γὰρ τὴν ἀρχὴν καλοῦσι Πέρσαι), Περόζης δὲ ὄνομα. "a Persian man, holding the office of mihran (thus the Persians call it), named Firouz." It is of course possible that Procopius is wrong (possibly the office was hereditary to the family), but Haldon, in The Byzantine Wars, follows Procopius. On the other hand, a more careful search brings up Persian sources as well as the Cambridge History, which do indeed indicate that the Mihrans were an important Parthian clan ([5], [6], [7], [8] and [9]). At any rate, since they were among the preeminent families of the Sassanid Empire, the article should be kept, and we can discuss content there. Constantine ✍ 12:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But this article is not about a family, it is about a particular person. This article should be deleted, but an article about the clan sounds possible under the title 'Mihran clan' or family or whatever. But this particular article which is about a specific person is what this AfD is about. dougweller (talk) 13:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that the current content is pretty much worthless doesn't mean that the article itself, or rather its title, doesn't refer to something important, namely the Mihran clan, and the several Persian generals of that clan who are known only as "Mihran". If one were to write an article on the clan, then "Mihran" would be a possible title. I have some similar articles in mind, e.g. Doukas or Palaiologos. As such, there is no need to delete the article, merely rewrite it with proper sources. I for one intend to do that over the next few days. It's a situation similar to the History of slavery in Iran article, i.e., falling under WP:RESCUE. With proper sources, it can become a worthwhile article. Constantine ✍ 14:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I feel stupid: an article on the House of Mihran already exists. So I guess it would make more sense to redirect Mihran to that article, and add whatever info there is in the House of Mihran article. Constantine ✍ 15:18, 13 November 2008 (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.