Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definitions of pogrom (2nd nomination)

Definitions of pogrom

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Definitions of Pogrom
• Articles for deletion/Definitions of pogrom
• Articles for deletion/Definitions of pogrom (2nd nomination)

Definitions of pogrom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Pointy POVFORK based on original research. See original deletion discussion and Talk:Pogrom for this editor's history. See also related AFD from same editor. Note this article was AFD-deleted once before under 'Definitions of Pogrom' with a capital 'P' - nice try. Zargulon (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - There is no reason to overturn the previous consensus, and this article appears to simply be a subset of the old article. I'd need to see compelling reasons why the old consensus should not apply to change my vote. Wieno (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggest this editor be investigated: Very suspicious editing history. Had made 77 edits in 7 years. Yet suddenly pops up to participate here and in another deletion discussion by the same nominator here. Then immedietaly after being accused at the other AfD, makes 100+ edits in seven hours (more than he had made in the preceding seven years) like some kind of pro editor. Something is very fishy. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment from creator - the previous discussion has nothing to do with this article. The scope is now so narrow that all of the concerns raised before related to the material removed. I explained this here User_talk:J04n#Definitions_of_Pogrom.

The article which was subject to the previous discussion is here

This article is a simple list of definitions for a complex word. It is following precedent articles such as Definitons of genocide. Why would that article be ok and this not?

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Once, please review WP:OTHERSTUFF, it will save a lot of time. Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Keep / Oppose A useful list and timeline of the variety of definitions of a complex word. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. Isn't this more the domain of Wiktionary? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Transwiki. Otherwise, WP:FORK would make us delete it. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• Delete or Transwiki. I agree with Bearian. Even if it's useful, it's not encyclopedic. Definitions belong on Wiktionary, and Pogrom already has a perfectly workable definition. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• Delete I was notified on my User Talk a few days about this, and I decided to wait and see if there might be new perspectives I hadn't thought of before commenting here. But, the same arguments that took the previous version of this article to Delete still stand. Fundamentally, WP:NOTDICDEF, which is policy, still applies. Making an article out of numerous WP:NOTDICDEF violations doesn't solve the issue. I thought briefly about suggesting the article be renamed to List of definitions of pogrom but per WP:LIST the individual list items have to be generally worthy of their own Wikipedia articles, and again per WP:DICDEF there cannot be individual articles for each of the items in this list. As I mentioned last time, this is an interesting list of sources, but it's not suitable for a Wikipedia article. If this comes back again for a third time I'm afraid I'd have to recommend WP:SALTing the target. Zad68 04:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Bundling: Per guidance at WP:MULTIAFD, I am also nominating the following related pages because the rationale for "transwiki-ing" this article appears to apply exactly to the content of the below (lists of different people's definitions for a word). Since Multiafd suggests "debates should be bundled only at the start or near the start of the debate, before most of the discussion", I leave it to other editors to decide whether we are near enough to the start here. To my mind if we choose to transwiki all these type of articles, we should try to ensure we have had as wide a discussion as possible:

Definitions of fascism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Definitions of logic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Genocide definitions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Oncenawhile (talk) 12:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)