Battle of Waliyan: The relevant sources (e.g. Barthold 1968 and Sverdrup 2017) only discuss it as a minor skirmish in the lead up to the Battle of Parwan , and describe it in three sentences or less.  This is reflected in the weighting of the article, the vast majority of which is dedicated to "Background" and only two sentences to the actual battle.  Additionally, as noted on the talk page, the source which states that this battle resulted in uprisings can be clearly seen to misread his source.  Further justifications for keeping the article on the talk page were largely original research or WP:ILIKEIT .  Bringing this here as a previous WP:BLAR to Battle of Parwan#Prelude was reverted.  I still think a redirect there is the best course of action.  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 13:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , Afghanistan ,  and Mongolia .  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 13:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In case anyone is confused about the sources, here are the ones relevant to the battle: Barthold 1968 pp.441–2 : "From [Parwan] [Jalal al-Din] first of all defeated a Mongol force which was besieging the fortress of Waliyan (or Walishtan) in Tukharistan. The Mongols lost 1,000 men killed, crossed the river (probably the Panjshir) and destroyed the bridge; by this means they delayed their enemies long enough to enable them to return swiftly to Chingiz-Khan."  There follow 17 sentences on the Battle of Parwan and its aftermath.  Sverdrup 2017 : "Mongol officers Taqacaq and Mulgar attempted to take Waliyan. Jalal al-Din moved to Parwan; making a quick move across the mountains to the north, he surprised and routed the Mongols at Waliyan, inflicting a reported 1,000 loss on them. The Mongols retreated across a river, and destroyed a bridge to keep the enemy from following (spring 1221). Jalal al-Din had left his baggage at Parwan and returned there."  There follow 20 sentences on the Battle of Parwan and its aftermath.  And those relevant to the alleged uprisings: Jacobs 2012 p. 132 : "Jelal ad-Din (1207–1273) had organized an army at this time and even beaten a Mongol army at Waliyan (Barthold, 441–2). In several other towns the citizens took heart at this victory and rebelled, slaying their Mongol governors (op. cit., 442)."  Here Jacobs, a non-specialist historian, makes two errors which shows his lack of familiarity with the material:  1) he gets Jelal ad-Din's dates entirely wrong (he actually lived c. 1995 –1233), and  2) he misunderstands Barthold, who clearly states that the rebellions were the result of the Battle of Parwan .  This clearly shows that Jacobs is not a reliable source.  What the article currently says on the battle: "From there, he went first to Waliyan, which was under siege by the Mongols, defeated their two armies under the leaderships of Tekejik and Molger, and lifted the siege of Waliyan, with about 1,000 Mongol casualties. The Mongols fled by crossing a river, probably the Panjshir River, and destroyed the bridge behind them. The victory of Waliyan motivated other cities to rebel against the Mongols, and to slain their Mongol Governors." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 13:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Obviously no copyright rules have been violated here as far as I am aware, but see also what Earwig's Copyvio Detector says when comparing this article to the Battle of Parwan , it's indeed mostly copied from that article; [59] .  -- HistoryofIran ( talk ) 13:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you think a redirect to Battle of Parwan#Prelude might also work HistoryofIran ?  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 14:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah that would work too.  HistoryofIran ( talk ) 14:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep :Sources are few and laconic, but this is clearly more than a "skirmish" since as many as 1000 Mongols soldiers are said to have been lost...  The timing too seems fairly remote from the Battle of Parwan , as Waliyan occured in spring, whereas Parwan was in autumn.  Parwan was actually motivated by the humiliation of Waliyan, which incited Genghis Khan to mobilize a large amount of troops for retribution, so Waliyan was not an insignificant encounter in his mind either: it was a significant and humiliating defeat which deserved a strong response.  The location too is fairly distant.  Actually, I started this article because the Battle of Waliyan is illustrated in ancient sources ( ), whereas Parwan is not, and I was wondering what this was refering to.  We can trim the article by reducing the background if necessary, but I don't see how the encyclopedia would benefit by deleting it: we're better off by having a map, a description of the encounter, the historical illustration of it, and a summary of what sources have to say about it... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you want to address how you feel the article meets WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT ?  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 14:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am fairly satisfied with notability given that the battle is significant and mentioned in several reliable sources.  Its only shortcoming is that not too many details are known about the battle, but shortish articles are also acceptable on Wikipedia.  In addition, a map helps understand the dynamic of this encounter, and the depiction of the battle ( ) is quite famous.  Best पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "A map" the map shows half the world, the only detail being a red dot in what seems to be northern present-day Afghanistan.  Moreover, how is that depiction "quite famous"?  HistoryofIran ( talk ) 18:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 04:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as suggested above.  The sourcing is much too thin for a standalone article.  Mccapra ( talk ) 06:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as has been suggested above by the user पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra).  I commend his points and though the article may qualify for deletion due to coming short of WP:Notability, this battle is kinda exception as had great importance in medieval sources rather than contemporary modern scholarship.  -- 88.230.179.76 ( talk ) 07:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC) — 88.230.179.76 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] So just to clarify, the article fails the notability guidelines but because it was described in one (1) medieval chronicle, it's worthy of a Wikipedia article?  Not sure of that logic, personally.  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 03:37, 1 March 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect