Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politicide


 * 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The result was Speedy keep under WP:SK ground 1: nomination withdrawn with no arguments for deletion. NAC— S Marshall T/C 17:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)'''

Politicide
This article is essentially a dictionary definition for a wp:neologism. It covers three different definitions which are unrelated, except for their relation to the root word "political".


 * 1) Destroying a political system
 * 2) Homicide directed at members of a political group
 * 3) An action which ends one's own political career

It appears in template:Homicide even though only one of the definitions fits. I believe this is the reason for the large number of "what links here". Thundermaker (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For some reason, the "this article's entry" part of the deletion tag rushes over to a 2006 debate on Policide, which is something else entirely. Mandsford 19:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed.— S Marshall T/C 23:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. The article is currently poor, but with appropriate references and expansion could develop in an interesting direction, and provide a useful focus to cross link articles which outline examples of politically motivated genocides. --Haruth (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Snow keep. It's never appropriate to delete an article about a word that has a wiktionary entry. There are only two possibilities here:-  (1) We should have an article, or (2) We shouldn't.  If we shouldn't, then we could have a soft redirect to the wiktionary entry on "politicide" instead.  So whichever way this AfD goes, there's an alternative to deletion.  WP:BEFORE says that where there's an alternative to deletion, we ought to use it.  Therefore this nomination fails WP:BEFORE and needs to be speedily closed.  Discussion about whether to replace the article with a soft redirect to wiktionary belongs on the article's talk page.— S Marshall  T/C 23:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * A redirect sounds reasonable to me. I might be the only participant in the redirect discussion (my DAB-or-delete thread there got 0 responses), but that's OK.  An admin is required to close this AfD, I think.  Thundermaker (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you'll agree to withdraw the nomination, then I'll close the AfD and perform the soft redirect.— S Marshall T/C 15:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, consider the AfD nomination withdrawn. Thundermaker (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2010 (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.