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


 * 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. slakr \ talk / 07:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Definitions of pogrom
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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.
 * 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.   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:
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 12:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Once, per your linked guidance at WP:MULTIAFD, you are presumably doing this because you feel 'all of these articles should be deleted together". While as nominator I don't personally endorse this bundling, nor the deletion of these other articles, it's at least now clear that even the creator of Definitions of pogrom wants it to be deleted'. I'm glad we were able to establish that so uncontroversially. Zargulon (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't put words in other editors' mouths. I am ambivalent here; so long as the community reaches a proper consensus I will be happy. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Once, can you try to explain why you would nominate articles for deletion if you are "ambivalent" about whether they should be deleted? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oncenawhile please read the first example at WP:POINT and withdraw these other nominations. What you are doing is highly disruptive. Wieno (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ALL of the editor comments have focused on the question of whether an article listing definitions of a word is appropriate for wikipedia. ALL of them. A wider discussion is needed to ensure we reach a broad consensus on what is a wikipedia-wide question. (PS - the nom clearly has his own wp:point to make. And you are yet to provide an explanation regarding the question raised regarding the your edit history.) Oncenawhile (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Once, all of the other editor comments have focussed on the question of whether Definitions of pogrom should be deleted. That is the sole appropriate subject for posts on this page. We understand you wish to have some kind of "wider discussion". Could you please explain why, despite the many places on wikipedia and elsewhere where it would be appropriate for you to start one, you have chosen to try to start one here, where it is not appropriate? And also, again, why you have nominated three articles for deletion despite being "ambivalent" on whether they should be deleted? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oncenawhile please read the first example at WP:POINT and withdraw these other nominations. What you are doing is highly disruptive. Wieno (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ALL of the editor comments have focused on the question of whether an article listing definitions of a word is appropriate for wikipedia. ALL of them. A wider discussion is needed to ensure we reach a broad consensus on what is a wikipedia-wide question. (PS - the nom clearly has his own wp:point to make. And you are yet to provide an explanation regarding the question raised regarding the your edit history.) Oncenawhile (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Once, all of the other editor comments have focussed on the question of whether Definitions of pogrom should be deleted. That is the sole appropriate subject for posts on this page. We understand you wish to have some kind of "wider discussion". Could you please explain why, despite the many places on wikipedia and elsewhere where it would be appropriate for you to start one, you have chosen to try to start one here, where it is not appropriate? And also, again, why you have nominated three articles for deletion despite being "ambivalent" on whether they should be deleted? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Oncenawhile should face a topic ban at some point if he can't help himself from creating these very POINTY POVFORKS. It's simply tendentious editing. Wasting everybody's time per usual. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. For complex concepts, this seems pretty useful. It is well referenced, so what's the problem? At best, the only idea I have is to rename this to list of definitions of pogrom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. I'm also concerned that there could possibly be copyright issues involved in the wholesale quotation of definitions taken from other sources in the way it is done here. It is one thing to include brief quotes from non-free sources in an article otherwise written by Wikipedia contributors, and another thing entirely to create an article almost entirely from such sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep WP is not a dictionary. But these are meaningful definitions, illuminating the various view on the subject, and will be helpful to our readers. It could be used a a section elsewhere, but will stand on its own. Every book on pogroms has containsed a discussion of that author's and other people's definitions, so the relevance of all of these is in fact sourceable.  DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you tell us a bit about your background DGG? You must be a scion of pogromology indeed to have been exposed to "every book on pogroms". Zargulon (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's not make this personal. I have no doubt that DGG has seen quite a few books in his day. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Lol. Zargulon (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Educational and encyclopedic. Well sourced, but also room for expansion with additional secondary sources. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG, who is a well-known librarian off-wiki, and a well-respected Wikipedian. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify: I'd be happy with a keep or transwikification. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Look at Oncenawhile's behavior following this AFD. He put up AFD notices on the following pages, but they actually linked back to THIS page!!!
 * Definitions of fascism
 * Genocide definitions
 * Definitions of logic
 * This behavior either is very inept or is deceptive and puerile (well its puerile either way). This editor does not appear mature or level-headed enough to be editing on such matters on which s/he gets so easily exercised. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please uncollapse the box above, read the ANI (now archived), and see Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion.
 * And please stop with the personal attacks. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.