Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre (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 keep (non-admin closure). Thine  Antique   Pen  17:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Massacre
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Delete. This is, ahem, the dictionary definition of a dictionary definition. Discussion from 2011 on this topic resulted in no consensus. coccyx bloccyx (toccyx)  22:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: This is a valid subject with widespread usage in multiple language, application in cultures all over the world, and with examples throughout history. It deserves to be described and explored, and there is enough subject material for a full article. I would have thought it inconceivable that editors would want to delete this entry; one might as well delete articles such as War, Battle, or Riot, as they are both contentious concepts, and open to legal and colloquial interpretations. The entry for Massacre has potential to be a decent-sized article, and just because previous attempts have been stalled by uncooperative editors is not justification to summarily delete the page.Boneyard90 (talk) 04:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as dictionary definition. Carrite (talk) 04:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I will get out of the way to ease the determination of consensus. Carrite (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'd like to point out you're talking about deleting a pretty high-profile article. Check the page views, it gets about 15,000 views per month. With all the events that are being called "massacre", it's pretty valid for readers to want to read about it. The page just needs some work. Boneyard90 (talk) 04:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - valid high traffic entry for an encyclopedia, added a few lines to shift the focus from pure definition to the difficulties in usage of the term, should be expanded much more though, good source for anyone volunteering eg . Skäpperöd (talk) 08:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - I don't see the reason for deletion here. It's a valid subject.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. - DonCalo (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's not just a dictionary definition, as stated in the AfD nom, but a category of events that can be described for the purpose of a single article. While it could be expanded, I don't think there's a strong justification for deleting the article. In such an important topic area, I lean towards keeping. -- Lord Roem (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - high traffic of visits to this article is evidence that our core readership, students, read this stuff. They do not go to Wiktionary, they go to English Wikipedia.  That by itself, is reason to keep it, IMHO.  However, I would keep this also based on past precedent; we keep such 'concept' articles.  Please see, for example, Articles for deletion/Religious violence, Articles for deletion/Backroad, Articles for deletion/Chaos, Articles for deletion/Sisu, Articles for deletion/Velleity, Articles for deletion/Nursing in pakistan, and so forth.  The consensus in the past has almost always to keep these types of articles, so to delete this one would probably require a complete re-write of WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article is more then just a dictionary definition, it is a high traffic article and its use could be made to be a disambiguation page or redirect at worst. Deleting it will serve no purpose. See Murder. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, plenty of coverage in secondary sources, as evidenced by sheer number of books covering subject matter with term in their titles. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2012 (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.