Mongol invasion of Central Asia: All the information in the article is summarized in either Mongol conquest of the Qara Khitai or Mongol conquest of the Khwarazmian Empire ; this should probably either be deleted or redirected to Mongol invasions and conquests .  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 18:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] EDIT per discussion with 3family6 below, I think Disambiguate also just about works.  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 17:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , Asia ,  and Mongolia .  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 18:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, this seems like a redundant, synthesized topic.  Delete per nom.  Withdrawn for now while I talk to the editor.  The article has expanded and its purpose clarified since I originally voted, now fully for keeping .  Remsense 留 19:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Mccapra ( talk ) 07:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: per above Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 12:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as WP:SYNTH .  An interesting case, though, as it is literally the opposite of a WP:POVFORK .  Instead of splitting one subject, it takes two valid topics and attempts to artificially combine them into one.  Maybe a POVSPOON?  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or userfy Disambiguate as there is more to Mongol campaigns in Central Asia than just the summaries of these two campaigns, although they were the largest.  The invasion of Cumania, for example.  I'm actually in the process of creating some of that content.  There is a need for an overarching treatment of how the specific campaigns all relate to each other.  More directly to the issue, though, is that a quick search of "Mongol invasion of Central Asia" brings up multiple sources about the topic, not all of them about only the invasion of Khwarezmia.  There's even at least two with that exact title.  Here's some of the results: [54] , [55] , [56] , [57] , [58] . -- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done ) 00:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've greatly expanded the content to include other operations and campaigns in Central Asia. Should address the SYNTH issues.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done ) 17:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree.  Your expansions to the article and comments above indicate that you believe a substantial portion of the "invasion of Central Asia" began before the commencement Mongol invasion of Khwarazmia in 1218—this is not supported by any of the sources you have provided: Islam 2016 states "a punitive action against the Kara-Khitai was the prelude to the all-out Mongol invasion of Central Asia in 1218–1219".  The campaigns such as the invasion of Cumania are not mentioned in the article entitled "The Mongol Invasion of Central Asia", which is completely devoted to the invasion of Khwarazmia.  It is clear that Islam's conception of the "Invasion of Central Asia" is just our article Mongol invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire under a different name, and completely unrelated to your conception  of there being "more to Mongol campaigns in Central Asia than just the summaries of these two campaigns".  Abasov 2008 is an entry from an encylopedia entitled "Historical Atlas Of Central Asia"—as such, many entries include the words "Central Asia" in their titles, but are described on WP under different names.  See for instance the entry "The Arab Conquest of Central Asia" (on WP Muslim conquest of Transoxiana ) or "Timur and the Timurid Empire in Central Asia (on WP Timur & Timurid Empire ). Aside from that, it must be noted that Abasov, like Islam, states outright "In 1219, Genghis Khan invaded Central Asia"—again, he does not mention Cumania, or any other campaigns, clearly showing that he is just referring to the invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire. The academics.hamilton.edu source similarly states "The Mongols began their invasion of Central Asia in 1218.. .  on a mission of vengeance against the ruler of Khwarezm" I am confused by your citations above to Biran 2009 and a Boundless World History textbook, as neither use the phrase "Invasion of Central Asia". Nevertheless, neither discusses events before 1216. So to summarize, the sources explicitly titled "The Mongol Invasion of Central Asia" only discuss the Mongol invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire , while none of the five sources you have provided support the inclusion of sections on the "Destruction of the Merkit–Naiman alliance", the "Submission of the Uyghurs and Karluks", or the "Destruction of the Merkit–Kipchak alliance". As it stands, the article thus contains quite a bit more WP:SYNTH than before. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 18:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] what part of the world do those sections I added deal with? Geographic Central Asia. It is not SYNTH to mention campaigns that happened in Central Asia as part of a series of campaigns in Central Asia, especially when the argument in question is that there is nothing else that happened in Central Asia. The five sources above that I mentioned I listed before I created this new content. I did not cite them to support these additions. I added these additions because there are additional battles that happened in Central Asia, when the argument is that there wasn't anything else happening in Central Asia.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done ) 19:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here are some sources that include what I've added as part of Mongol activity in Central Asia: pages 8-10 , [59] , [60] -- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done ) 19:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the argument in question is that there is nothing else that happened in Central Asia That is not the argument: as written in the deletion nomination above, the article is not in itself notable—sources do not discuss it as an entity, and to combine multiple sections on individually notable campaigns that are not explicitly connected by reliable sources is WP:SYNTH . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 20:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You contended that the new content I added did not belong in this article. That's what I mean about arguing that nothing else occurred in Central Asia. They are explicitly connected, in the source material. One rolled into the next. The early mopping up of Merkit and Naiman opposition directly flowed into the conquest of Qara Khitai because Kuchlug seized the Qara Khitan throne. And then the Mongols were rubbing up against Khwarazm, which led to that conquest. This is reflected in many of the sources. And this source by one of the historians that I cite in the new content that I added explicitly says the preliminary expansion started in 1209.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done ) 00:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, events flowing into each other is generally how time works. I don't think this getting anywhere productive, so I'll disengage and let the closer evaluate. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 00:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If sources discuss all this happening, it isn't original synthesis. There's sources that include both the conquest of Qara Khitai and Khwarazm in descriptions of the Mongol conquest of Central Asia. And now I've provided sources showing that the other actions in geographic Central Asia are described as occurring in that part of the world, and now I've shown that there's at least one source connecting all of these other actions to the big campaign that was the conquest of Khwarazm. While the article still needs work, the concerns for why it is it is nominated for deletion are addressed. Editors are supposed to do their due diligence first and consult sources before nominating for deletion. I can see why the source material would be difficult to work through, but now it's provided, so the notability concerns don't hold water. And whatever remaining SYNTH concerns there might have been, the Timothy May article I linked to above clears those up. Deletion is not a substitute for cleanup. I'll be happy to clean up this article once I've finished the current project I'm working on. It just so happens through coincidence that my creation of articles related to the Mongol conquest of Siberia happened to also have a lot of pertinence to, and overlap with, the early Central Asian endeavors, so I had material relatively at the ready.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done ) 01:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 3family6 , non-leading question, could you articulate what additional value is contributed to the wiki by the existence of this article as opposed to all its pertinent information (in a future, complete version to your satisfaction) being contained in the other relevant articles? Remsense 留 01:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What is pertinent to having any over-arching articles about large, inter-related campaigns when we have articles about the constituent campaigns and battles of which they are comprised? We could get even larger - for instance, Anne Broadbridge mentions the "Western Campaign", which is basically everything west and southwest of Mongolia as opposed to the campaign against the Chinese states (note: I'm not saying that in this case we should, but that there's precedent in reliable sources to do so). It's useful for readers (which includes myself) to have articles that are broad summaries that show how a series of specific campaigns are related. Secondly, while some of the content I've added could have its own article, specifically the submission of Uyghur and Karluk states, and the Battle of Chem will have its own article, some of the content I don't think will ever merit its own article. It's more notable in how it relates to these other key events than stand-alone.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done ) 01:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The precise meaning of 'campaign' is key here. It may sound like a pedantic point, but is there any  notion that the various central Asian campaigns were viewed at the time as being part of a larger 'campaign' as it were? Or is is simply a historiographical construction? I think an article could be viable either way, but it definitely affects what I think the focus and scale of the article should be. Remsense 留 01:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's a great question. The conquest of Qara Khitai seems to be part of the same campaign as the initial operations in 1209 that followed-up Jochi's Siberian campaign, as it essentially is part of the "mopping up" of opposition factions that date back to the rise of Genghis Khan. And there's some historical speculation that the Uyghurs and Karluks submitted because the Mongols weren't in their territory just to pursue the Merkits. The part that's less clear is if Khwarazm was viewed as part of this. And I that depends on if there was always a plan to invade Khwarazm, and that's debated by historians. So it's a historical construction, but possibly reflective of how the Mongols saw it. After Khwarazm, it seems a lot clearer that the Mongols now saw the entire West as a possession of the imperial family and the respective campaigns were all part of securing that.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done ) 12:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] could you articulate what additional value is contributed to the wiki by the existence of this article as opposed to all its pertinent information (in a future, complete version to your satisfaction) being contained in the other relevant articles? Remsense and AirshipJungleman29 , I could see each of the sections I added being turned into an article, if they aren't already, and this article being converted into a reference article such as a dab or list article . I think there's value to having it in full article form, but I can see that as alternate option and I wouldn't be opposed to that.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done ) 03:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 3family6 , yes, I see it now, I'm going to reverse my original position now. Thanks for the answers! Remsense 留 03:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I still don't see how any of that discussion solves what seems to be core issue. What need is there for 'an overarching treatment' of the various (apparently very distinct) campaigns? I am not seeing them treated as a unified concept in the sources. What am I missing? Can someone give a short (paragraph or less) explanation of that, please? I am not hard to persuade to keep an article, but I'm just not seeing how this is not WP:SYNTH and probably WP:OR . Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not original synthesis as there are no conclusions reached that aren't in the source material. I challenge editors to show where that is the case. The biggest issue I see is that most references to "Mongol invasion/conquest of Central Asia" refer to Khwarazm or both Qara Khitai and Khwarazm.  But, given that  1) these other campaigns/operations also occurred in geographic Central Asia (where else could they be discussed? They aren't Europe or Siberia, although there's overlap. The securing of Xinjiang and surrounding area could be discussed in the invasions China, but if editors are opposing inclusion here, they'd have to oppose inclusion there, as well), and  2) there are academic sources to support both the submission of the Uyghurs and Karluks and the "mopping-up" campaign beginning in 1209.  The sections on Qara Khitai and Khwarazm aren't cited, but that's a WP:V issue and there's plenty of sources to support that material that just aren't yet cited. -- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done ) 23:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] FWIW, I still don't see this either. I don't see how the sentence "Mongol expansion into Central Asia began in 1209" requires an entire article to be created on the "Mongol invasion of Central Asia", especially as the same author says differently elsewhere and two other sources define the "Mongol invasion of Central Asia" to be the Mongol invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire . If this article is kept, it has to be moved to something like "List of Mongol campaigns in Central Asia", as I did for the article formerly titled Mongol conquest of Siberia . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 17:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree that it should be moved to "Mongol campaigns in Central Asia". AirshipJungleman29 , how would you categorize the minor 1209 campaign in Central Asia if it was created as it's own article? I.e., in the infobox, how would "part of the Mongol campaigns in Central Asia be incorrect, especially given that it can be cited to a source?-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done ) 23:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You have already created it as its own article: Battle of Irtysh River (13th century) . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 23:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's fair. You would argue that the follow-up activities that would be included in the aftermath section of that article and my forthcoming Battle of Chem River article would be sufficient?-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done ) 00:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Background and aftermath sections are all that would be required 3family6 . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 01:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] At this point, I am not sure that even a merge to that subject is worthwhile. I am still firmly in the 'Delete' camp unless someone can explain why this is an encyclopaedic subject in itself and not a synthesis that artificially combines separate campaigns in a way that the scholarship does not support. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 16:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Scholarship does support it. There's debate as to whether or not Khwarazm was always the end goal after Qara Khitai, and whether it was a goal or not, if the Irghiz River skirmish was a one-off or the prelude to the invasion (which in part depends on when it happened - 1209 or 1219, which is also debated).-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done ) 23:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 06:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per 3family6 and Remsense. And anyway, for the editors who want to delete it, why not just split it into separate articles and leave it as a list of the central asian campaigns? JM ( talk ) 06:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keeping this as a list is another possibility if the consensus is to delete.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done ) 23:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] JM2023 , because we already have those articles ( Mongol conquest of the Qara Khitai and Mongol conquest of the Khwarazmian Empire ), and we already have a list of Mongol invasions and conquests as well. As the nomination pointed out, this is essentially WP:SYNTH - it summarizes the events of two individually notable campaigns, but is not in itself notable, and it is not discussed as [a unique, separate topic] in WP:RS . Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 23:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure I buy the argument that each and any way we structure information on this website has to have been done before in a previously published source. To extend that reasoning, the section Mongol invasions and conquests § Central Asia is SYNTH, and Mongol invasions and conquests § History and outcomes must be split up into precisely the military activities that are independently notable. I did briefly attempt to disprove the assertion that this subject had never been published about under a title like this (which I gave up early without resolution after about ten pages of search hits from the first publisher I checked). AirshipJungleman29 , you're something of a subject matter expert on this, so question for you: is there any title and structure for this material that would satisfy your sense of history communication, or is the framing so problematic that it beguiles readers into misunderstandings? To me, who knows little about this, it seems like a natural way to group information about Mongol expansion in a certain geographic and temporal space. Am I missing something? Is the article missing something? Looking back over the Mongol invasions and conquests article, I see the heading "West Asia", see a single three-sentence paragraph, and this intimidating section hatnote: Main articles: Mongol invasions of the Levant , Anatolia , Khwarezmian Empire , Georgia , the Nizaris of Alamut , and Siege of Baghdad (1258) What if I want a deeper understanding than the three sentences, but I don't want to read six separate articles? Is Wikipedia unable to summarise material to an intermediate level of detail because that level of detail doesn't really have a precedent in academic publishing? Folly Mox ( talk ) 05:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Folly Mox Mongol invasions and conquests is a pretty terrible article. I have no idea why it's organised geographically rather than chronologically, as is done for literally every war summary on Wikipedia. It is also ludicrously short on detail—the three sentence paragraph you outline could easily be twenty times the length. As it stands, the article's organisation is WP:SYNTH ; but its content is not, because many sources do give an overview of the Mongol conquests. To answer your question, the only way this article should exist in my view is under the title List of Mongol campaigns in Central Asia . But we do not have articles on subjects like List of Napoleonic War battles in modern Germany , or List of Second Sino-Japanese War campaigns in modern Shandong , and I don't think we should, even though they would undoubtedly be "intermediate level summaries" between Napoleonic Wars / Second Sino-Japanese War and Lists of battles of the French Revolutionary Wars and Napoleonic Wars / List of military engagements of the Second Sino-Japanese War . Let me know if that answers your question or if I totally misread it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 20:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] AirshipJungleman29 thank you for that explanation, that makes a lot more sense to me.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done ) 00:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry I meant to respond to this days ago, and had a reply all drafted, then my phone crashed and I forgot I never posted it. I think I'm of the opinion that simply reorganising information cannot be SYNTH, which involves drawing conclusions from a combination of sources where none of the sources individually supports the conclusion. The closest guidance we have for this opinion might be WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY , or its catchily named upstairs neighbour WP:SYNTHNOTJUXTAPOSITION , which sounds like a curse hex where someone changed a single character to avoid a naming taboo. Both of these are from an essay. That's not to say we can just write about whatever we want as long as it's sourced adequately: some things are not encyclopaedic topics. Being that the nom and the creator seem to be coming to an agreement below, I don't think I'll be leaving a not-vote, but I did want to circle back to this before it closed. Folly Mox ( talk ) 18:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm changing my keep vote to ""split off"" into individual articles the content that doesn't already have an article (I'm planning to do this, in the meantime I can put the content in my sandbox),  and ""disambiguate"' the title.  I disagree with AirshipJungleman29 and Last1in that this article is SYNTH, but AirshipJungleman29 makes a really good point about this article not following existing conventions that others in this subject matter follow.  I think it will be superfluous and redundant.  Remsense and JM2023 , see my change of mind here. -- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done ) 15:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks 3family 6; also Remsense .  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 17:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  As a closer, I have a few options available to me: Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, Draftify and Rename/Move.  I can not "split off" this article into other articles or disambiguate it.  Those are editorial decisions to be made by you all if it is decided that this article should be Kept.  So most of this discussion here, while interesting, is besides the point and can occur on the article talk page if there is a consensus to Keep this article.  Right now, I don't see a consensus so I'm relisting this discussion.  As for any future contributions to this discussion, please keep them simple, realizing the limitations that a closer deals with, and move content-related discussions of what might happen later to this article to the article talk page.  Thanks.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All right (sorry

Discussion outcome: keep