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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurd-Dagh[edit]

Vanity (def #1) article. Unsourced, unreferenced and overall unhelpful. Article focuses more about controversies than the geological data. The name itself is a subject of controversy apperantly.

As Geography of Turkey article points out, south eastern turkey is a very mountainous area and I feel better to cover the mountain range (Taurus Mountains) in a single article as the individual mountains don't seem to have stand alone notability.

--Cat out 06:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unless I'm missing something, this appears to be a legitimate place. -- Tim D 06:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an existing, notable region in Syria and Turkey, as proven by the three references I just added to the article. Google also confirms this. It also gets 155 hits on Google books...I don't get how an article about a region is "vanity". Khoi khoi 06:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Chill will ya? You do not need to vote the second I start an AFD. --Cat out 06:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ha. Ha. Punkmorten 15:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - precedent says that real places (ie towns, mountains, lakes, etc) are notable (see WP:AFDP). --Daniel Olsen 06:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but this mountain is a part of a mountain range. Individual mountains dont have any true distinction... --Cat out 06:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where is the guideline that says individual mountains aren't notable? Punkmorten 15:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the mountain has offended you in some way, you should probably first try to take things up with it personally... -- Tim D 16:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no such guideline, just how I feel it should be covered. We do not use guidelines to do everything.
    
    Huh? There is no way a rock can offend me...
    
    --Cat out 16:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per WP:AFDP "Geographical features such as lakes, rivers, mountains, etc., are notable." Single mountains are included in the term "mountains" like single rivers are included in "rivers." Besides, this article is of a region, not just a mountain. --Oakshade 06:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, isn't a statement like "it is among the three "ethnic mountains" of western Syria" assertion of notability? Kavadi carrier 07:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per.. oh, everyone else. :-) Let's go ahead and speedy keep this one. - JNighthawk 16:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tim D. Clackmannanshireman 17:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I don't really see how an article about a mountain can be vanity, since mountains don't write articles. I know the "other things like this have an article so this should have an article" argument often doesn't go over well in Afd, but in this case I think it applies, as there isn't a guideline. If you check the categories related to mountains there are tons of individual US mountains with article (9 in Massachusetts alone, and we're not really famous for our mountains.) Most mountains are part of a mountain range, so that argument doesn't really fly with me. Dina 18:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep An article of a region that speaks of "charcoal production" is VANITY?? Anyway, it's a place that has thousands of people living in it. Inherently notable. --Oakshade 06:45, 5 November 2006 (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.