Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass deaths and atrocities of the twentieth century


 * 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 delete. Sandstein (talk) 06:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Mass deaths and atrocities of the twentieth century

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Mostly a coatrack article for some librarian named Matthew White. The information here is already in articles like List of events named massacres and List of wars and disasters by death toll and Genocides in history, organized in a far superior manner. Merzbow (talk) 08:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - although I just spent the last half an hour trying to clean up this article for NPOV, I voiced my concerns about the page almost two years ago on the article's talk page and I've been considering nominating it for AFD myself. The problem is that it records estimates from only two sources, one of them quite obscure and the other not a reliable source (although he quotes from reliable sources).


 * I guess it's arguable that this page could be salvaged with a broader range of sources but it's been extant for years now and no-one has bothered, apart from which, we already have pages like List of wars and disasters by death toll which cover much the same ground but which as Merzbow suggests are better organized and better sourced. Gatoclass (talk) 08:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Sceptre (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete "The twentieth century is a legacy of the ability of humanity to engage willingly in acts of warfare and atrocity.".  This is someone's essay, no sources, with an equally unsourced Top 40 table of atrocities thrown in at the end to show... to show...  I'm not sure what it shows.  Did mass killings get invented in the 20th century?  Mandsford (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above.--Berig (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as verifiable and consistent with an almanac per Five pillars. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article containes original research. Five pillars says, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. All articles must follow our no original research policy." If multiple third part support data given then the article can stay.Divinediscourse (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Without a doubt multiple third paty data could be found to support these statistics, but that is an example of SOFIXIT. Original research is not an issue here.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If people want to fix it, they can recreate the deleted article with substantially different content. There is no imperative to keep terrible articles around because they technically could be rewritten somehow by somebody someday. The fact that the article is redundant is further argument against its existence. - Merzbow (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is far easier to work with an article already in existence. Per Potential, not just current state, the topic undeniably has scholarly value, i.e. potential.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 07:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If the other three articles I mentioned in the nom didn't exist, this article would have potential, but it's just duplicate coverage; fails "It gives some uniqueness to the topic, even if it is unreferenced." from the essay you link. - Merzbow (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then, I see no reason why we could not redirect it to the most appropriate one without deletion in order to keep the contributor's edit history public. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I usually have no problem with merge/redirect, except there is literally nothing in this article worth saving. Every reliable reference is to an incident already covered in equal/greater detail in the other articles. The mass of the article is stuff about Matthew White, which is throwaway. By this standard, we may as well go and create "Mass deaths and atrocities of the X century" for all 20 centuries, as immediate redirects to... where? - Merzbow (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research. Article itself states, "It should be noted that White himself makes no claims to have any qualifications in a relevant field".  KleenupKrew (talk) 09:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * All the more reason to improve the article per SOFIXIT rather than to needlessly delete it. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and provide additional sources. This is not OR by a wikipedian, although more reliable sources should be used. This is not a content fork of other articles mentioned above, because the material was organized differently and focused on 20th century.Biophys (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please note that per Requests for checkuser/Case/Divinediscourse Divinediscourse (who voted "delete" above) is using a sock account in multiple AfDs. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Redundant to the articles List of events named massacres, List of wars and disasters by death toll and Genocides in history.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I indicated above, in the case of redundant articles, we redirect without deleting. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge the reliably sourced stuff into the other articles. then delete.  No need to redirect.  Maybe turn into a category.  But this article shouldn't stay as is, per nom.  --DHeyward (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Per the GFDL, we cannot "merge and delete" (see Merge and delete); we have to merge and redirect without deleting. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * MergeGiovanni33 (talk) 10:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above.  Yahel  Guhan  01:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:PERNOM. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:BASH. Sincerely, Stifle (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Since pumpkin cannot resist responding to every comment here, allow me to quote a judicious phrase: In instances where the nomination includes a well-formulated argument, is extensive in its reasoning and clearly addresses the major issues, expressing simple support per nom may be sufficient. To wit: Delete PERNOM. Eusebeus (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant to existing articles, as laid out above. Risk of becoming a WP:POVFORK. No need to redirect, since it is not a likely search term. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 20:11, 22 April 2008 (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.