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 WP:SYNTH combining real place names with unsupported ancient Greek etymologies and suppositions based on a single ancient Armenian map, which when viewed, does not even appear to display the name in its English translation. It is unclear where most of the largely unverifiable information is coming from. The name "Imeon" does not even appear to be present in most of the sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Asia. 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]
@Jingiby: There appears to be no tangible definition. There are various pop history references, but when it gets down to it, everything from the Pamir Mountains to Tian Shan to Hindu Kush seem to be fingered as possible candidates - it's a frankly startling array of ambiguity. It should be noted that in the current article, the idea that "Emavon", as appearing in Suren T. Eremian's map, means "Imeon" is not even attested by any source, so would appear to be a clear case of WP:SYNTH. 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]
@Ficaia: As noted in Khazaria in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries: "Several different views exist on the location of Imeon. It could be the Tian Shan, Pamir, Pamir and Tian Shan, or the entire mountain range of the Tian Shan... - one way or another, it seems to be in the Roof of the World ballpark. 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]
@Wee Curry Monster: You sense incorrectly (wildly so). I came across this article while cleaning up listed fringe theories. 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]

@Wee Curry Monster: I removed unsupported statements, sources that failed verification and other material that did not mention the subject at all. I would honestly have to question whether you even fact-checked the explanations in the edit summaries for even a second before reverting. 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, Wee Curry Monster has insisted on twice restoring unverified and unconnected material [1][2], without claiming to have verified the material themselves. When it gets down to it, it seems that the entire article rests on one single source, this map: [3], which actually uses the term "Emavon" for the various ranges in question. There does not seem to be a shred of information in the article that does not ultimately build, in a WP:SYNTH-like manner, on this image. 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]

@Wee Curry Monster: Ahem. You did leave an very undue warning on my talk page for alleged edit warring, when the only one who has done any reverting on the page is yourself. And here we have more aspersions. You have made a keep vote based on no policy and refuse to explain it. 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]

@Wee Curry Monster: Sorry dude, that's different material, so I reverted zilch, while you reverted twice. I didn't notice your first revert precisely because I was editing different parts of the article, so there was no edit clash. This bad faith talk is some serious pot kettle black action. 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. @Iskandar323 I strongly suggest creating a source analysis table. Currently you have made some strong broad claims for why this article should be deleted under policy, but have not directly engaged with individual sources to prove those claims. Likewise the keep voters have made strong claims but have also failed to engage with individual sources to prove those claims. As such I am not seeing a strong argument made on either side that is based in evidence. If the AFD were to close now, the only options would be either keep per majority vote, or no consensus, as no strong argument has been made either way. A redirect would be a possible third option, although not many have supported that option. To move this conversation in a different direction (ie towards a delete outcome) we really do need a source analysis table. While this article is not an organization, the table at 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 @Wee Curry Monster, @Jingiby, @Idunnox3, @Ploreky, @𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆, @Hey man im josh, @Idunnox3: Please see the above. I'd be glad to know what I'm missing. 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 WP:SYNTH/WP:OR and failing WP:SIGCOV. I have to agree with the source analysis that the sourcing here is not sufficiently in-depth enough or direct enough to to meet WP:SIGCOV, and that it is collectively compiled in a way that amounts to original synthesis/ original research. Part of the issue here is that many of the sources are primary sources, or the sources being used are by historic writers which in my opinion should also be treated as primary sources given their age and the need for placing the materials into better context (work that would be done by a historical researcher writing on this term). If we had better contemporary sources addressing the topic directly and in detail, there would be a strong keep argument. As it is, a collection of passing mentions which do not define the term as clearly as what is given here, and bunch of primary materials being used to source the content as written is by definition WP:Original research. That said, I am not opposed to a redirect to 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 User:Wee Curry Monster. There is clearly enough "gray area" (I am counting six sources that do not definitively fail WP:GNG) that we can’t say the 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.