Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Imeon

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. It has been a month and opinions continue to differ. I do not see a consensus emerging. Star Mississippi 19:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Imeon

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

It is not clearly established that this is a name or even alternative name for the collection of mountains in question in common English usage. The term, variously linked to the Hindu Kush, Pamir, Tian Shan and Zagros mountains does not seem to be based on serious geographical works, but rather consists of

Iskandar323 (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Iskandar323 (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: this name is clearly visible on google books, including in Academic publications: check here. Jingiby (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@
Iskandar323 (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Redirect~~ to Roof of the World as an alternative to deletion. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mind this idea, since this seems in a very (very!) broad sense what the term 'Mount Imeon' seems to vaguely finger.
Iskandar323 (talk) 06:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Iskandar323 (talk) 08:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
It's telling that not a single tertiary reference, even in the Encyclopedia Iranica (the most apt), could be found for this.
Iskandar323 (talk) 09:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Sourced article that has stood for 14 years without challenge. I sense an element of nationalism in this nomination, which is and always has been a pox on wikipedia. W C M_email 06:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@
Iskandar323 (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm uncomfortable with what appears to me to be reliable sources being removed and cited content being removed during a deletion review. Best to leave it while the process runs its course, if you're right the article will be deleted anyway. W C M_email 09:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

Iskandar323 (talk) 09:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The article won't necessarily "be deleted anyway" if editors defend it based on no policy or independent verification.

Iskandar323 (talk) 09:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment: For the record,
Iskandar323 (talk) 09:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Focus on content, not on editors. I am not leaving angry messages on people's talk pages, nor do I have a 2 week block in my block history for violating a topic ban. And for the record., I restored cited content removed by you, after checking that IMHO it was sourced. This appeared to be an attempt to reduce an article to a stump during a deletion discussion to sway opinion. I could be wrong, other editors may disagree with my assessment but I put my faith in the community to come to the right decision. I suggest you do the same and not create personal conflict. W C M_email 10:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

Iskandar323 (talk) 11:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Incorrect [4] I restored material, you removed material again [5], ignoring a clear edit summary explaining my concerns. You were edit warring to remove material so a warning was appropriate, in fact is a requirment of our

WP:3RR policy. And I have explained my comment, it is bad faith to assert I have not. Please stop this confrontational attitude. W C M_email 13:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Iskandar323 (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep Sourced article with a real subject. Jingiby (talk) 05:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at least redirect to Roof of the World. There seem to be enough sources to merit a standalone article. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep, I think this is a reasonable compromise should the article be deleted. I think it's good enough to keep though, but I could be convinced otherwise.~Junedude433 (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no consensus to delete this article so the debate is whether it is more appropriate to Keep or Redirect this article. Please no further speculation about editor's motivations but it would be counter-productive to remove sourced content from an article undergoing a review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an important place and worth its own article. This is taught is Schools, hence, this is notable. It is also a geographical place covering wide areas. I don't see any reason for its deletion.Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 17:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's enough sources that a stand-alone article is appropriate. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No one can actually be reading the sources, because if they did, they would be finding next to no reliable mentions of the subject. Not inspiring.
Iskandar323 (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep definitely keep since you can even a book about this place. Idunnox3 (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @
WP:SIRS could be used to aid you in a source analysis. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Not a bad shout, since it is unclear if everyone has taken the time to closely inspect the sourcing or not. I have erred on the side of generosity regarding significance. @4meter4, @Junedude433: I hope you find this elucidating.

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
the map source	?	Y	?	N	?	This reconstructed map certainly mentions an Emavon, but no source has been provided to connect Emavon to Imeon - the two might be the same, but without a source asserting this, it is WP:OR . A 7th-century map is also primary.
The Geography of Ananias of Sirak	?	Y	?	?	?	No page number is provided. 467 is the number of pages. I found an archive.org copy of the work, but it is impossible to determine what the reference might be without reading the whole book. It is primary text with commentary.
Silk Road, North China - history blog	N	Y	N	Y	N	Does not mention the subject by name. About the region in general. Pure WP:SYNTH .
The Travels of Marco Polo, Vol. 1.	N	Y	Y	N	N	Does not mention the subject by name. About the region in general. Pure WP:SYNTH .
History of the Armenians.	N	Y	Y	Y	N	No page number has been provided and the subject does not appear in a search of the text. More likely WP:SYNTH .
SCAR Composite Gazetteer of Antarctica	?	Y	?	Y	?	Not about the subject but the name of a mountain range on Smith Island (South Shetland Islands), named after what it attests as the Bulgarian name for a mountain in the present day Pamir and Hindu Kush. One sentence. Pretty trivial.
(in references but not cited) US gov source	?	Y	?	Y	?	Has one line noting the Mount Imeon area as being in the "present Hindu Kush in northern Afghanistan". Trivial.
(in references but not cited) misc web source	?	Y	?	Y	?	Web source of unclear provenance. Mentions "in the Pamirs and the Hindu Kush around Mount Imai." - I assume this is the reference. Trivial. Again, no source attests that this name is the same name ( WP:OR ).
(in references but not cited) link to a book contents page	?	Y	?	Y	?	Links to contents page with no page number referenced. Again, impossible to assess without reading the work, as with the other unreferenced, unlinked sourced.
Total qualifying sources					0	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

I would request that the discussion be relisted again, so that participants and any new takers can inspect the sourcing more carefully.

Iskandar323 (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Pinging @

Iskandar323 (talk) 07:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

This and this, for a start. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 07:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that this is already taught in schools alone, means that this is notable. no sources needed.Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 07:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this wide place exists means that it is worthy to be on wikipedia. This is nonsense. Anyways, as long as it's a real area and covers a significant population, it's more or less notable enough for Wikipedia. Read

WP:NGEO. Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 07:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

It is quite disconcerting that you have clearly done no fact checking for yourself and are persisting in this. As I did before I did a quick search, which easily turned up numerous valid sources, to whit:

“

One source of the Amu Darya is the Pamir River, which emerges from Lake Zorkul in the Great Pamir Mountain ofAfghanistan (ancient Mount Imeon) East Turkestan to China Sea ca {7,500km} and flowing west to Qila-e Panja. [6]

”

“

... from one of the northernmost provinces under the rule of the Pathans or Mughals, close to the great Mount Imeon, which runs from the Caspian Sea eastward to the eastern Indian Ocean, and which separates Tatary224 from India.[7]

”

“

The Marco Polo sheep is named for the explorer, who described the species during his crossing of Pamir (ancient Mount Imeon) in 1271. Ovis means sheep and ammon is a derivative of Amun, the ancient Egyptian god who was depicted as ... [8]

”

“

In the second century A.D., the Bulgars came to Europe from their old homeland, the Kingdom of Balhara situated in the Mount Imeon area (present Hindu Kush in northern Afghanistan). The first Bulgarian state was established in 635 A.D., ... [9]

”

I could go on but numerous reliable source are easily found [10].

Of the sources used in the article.

http://www.kroraina.com/ is simply a conglomeration of papers, individually they need to be taken on their merit. The map is from this paper [11], to me it seems reasonably reliable.
[12] is clearly a reliable source, also found on google books [13]. The accusation that the ISBN has been falsified is a bad faith presumption, it is easy to make a transcription error, I've done so myself.
[14] is perfectly valid for citing the route of the silk road, the fact it doesn't mention Imeon is irrelevant; this is not
WP:SYNTH
.
[15] is perfectly valid for citing the route of the silk road, the fact it doesn't mention Imeon is irrelevant; this is not
WP:SYNTH
.
[16] valid cite for the subject it is supporting; this is not
WP:SYNTH
.
[17] valid cite for the subject it is supporting; this is not
WP:SYNTH
.
[18] Clearly mentions Mount Imeon and location. I note this has been labelled by Iskander as "failed verification".

I stand by my original assessment that there are sufficient reliable sources already in the article to merit keep, there are plenty of reliable sources to expand the article and provide additional cites if needed. This does not need to be relisted and I will not change my comment. Iskander needs to drop the stick and step away from the

deceased horse. W C M_email 08:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am going to give this a relist due to the source analysis
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
Roof of the world providing the term is briefly mentioned in a single sentence on that page.4meter4 (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep per source analysis table and subsequent analysis by
WP:SIGCOV is not present. Frank Anchor 18:42, 2 November 2022 (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.