Deletion of Criticism of Armenian historiography

Comment: I don't wonder, given who is prodding the article. Another case of  and it is not "certain scholars", but even Armenian ones or of Armenian heritage, such as Suny, not to mention the third-parties. Indeed, this is just the tip of the iceberg and I have much more to write. The criticism clearly detected several forgeries in particular, so it falls under the falsification of history template pretty well. And I don't think that Turkkaya Ataov or even just knowledgeable man can't debunk the misattribution and fake caption for quite notable painting
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: If the historiographers are notable, than the criticism should go on their pages or the subjects-being-investigated-by-the-historiographers' page, etc. The article in its current state is a hodgepodge list of criticisms that violates . I don't think there is enough notable content to justify a whole separate article on criticisms alone when there isn't even an article on Armenian historiography
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:coatrack)

Comment: The nominator Marshal Bagramyan has not provided any related policy for deletion. Given the Wikipedia:VOTE#Deletion.2C_moving_and_featuring|vote stack above and , I think the current true cast is 2 'keeps' vs. 2 'deletes' and would like to ask the closing admin to weigh the pros and cons. Thanks in any case
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)