Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide definitions

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. withdrawn by nominator -- RoySmith (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide definitions

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

Various editors have proposed that lists of definitions for complex or disputed words should not exist on wikipedia. Listing this and two other articles for as wide a consensus view as possible:

Definitions_of_terrorism#Scholars_and_recognized_experts_on_terrorism, although a section not an article, should also be considered.

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator, as wrong forum. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy-close this vexatious Afd. Zargulon (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Zargulon -- PBS (talk) 10:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Zargulon and PBS. Lists articles are accepted practice on Wikipedia, so they should not be deemed to constitute OR per se. Second, since the "definitions" of the terms are contentious, the list articles serve to introduce and make accessible different perspectives on the specific topic for the reader, which is a valuable reference function.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 11:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only "point" here is to get wide consensus. That is the "point" of wikipedia. Surely wide discussion benefits everyone? Oncenawhile (talk) 10:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not instead it will waste a lot of time and that is disruptive. You yourself say these are " complex or disputed words" although I see them as simple words with complex and varied meanings, I think you have made the point of why definitions of Genocide and Terrorism are suitable as articles. I will not comment on the other articles as I am not familiar with them, but they may well be of a similar type. -- PBS (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Oncenawhile:
1. Where has it previously been suggested that the article Genocide definitions be deleted?
2. As the nominator what are your specific objections to the article Genocide definitions?
-- PBS (talk) 10:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the definitions of pogrom deletion discussion linked above. The objections cited are:

WP:DICDEF (since wikipedia is not a dictionary)

Genocide definitions is not a dictionary article. Instead it is a reference point for the academic study of genocide and if you look at the citations in the article you will see that the main sources which include such lists are from academic books and not from dictionaries. The article is a fork from the genocide article and is a common way to deal with the issue when there are multiple definitions for a topic. It is a very important point to make as different definitions cause different papers to draw different conclusions and for someone to fully understand "genocide" they have to be aware that different definitions exist and which one a particular academic or official body is using. Exactly the same problem arises with terrorism and definitions of terrorism and probably dozens of other topics. As there article on genocide and terrorism are already large it makes sense to have a subsidiary article to explain the differences in definition. -- PBS (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR (presumably because there is no RS list which includes all these references, so they have been pieced together)
Copyright concerns (see Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Copyright_concerns_at_Definitions_of_pogrom)

Oncenawhile (talk) 10:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not generalise the issue over my questions. I have asked you specific questions about the article Genocide definitions.

Where has it previously been suggested that the article Genocide definitions be deleted?
Why have you (yourself -- not other people) raised Genocide definitions as an article for deletion. What are (your not other people's) specific objections to the article?
As you have raised it. What are your copyright (not other people's) concerns with the text in Genocide definitions? BTW the usual way to deal with that is through the talk page of an article not an AFD.

-- PBS (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PBS,

1. At the deletion discussion I referenced, most comments referred broadly to such articles. I added all relevant articles to this multiafd - there is no reason why genocide definitions is the first - they are all the same.

2. Because I think this is a very subjective question and I think a wide community discussion is warranted

3. Exactly the ones raised at the copyright page: the articles are lists of "direct quotations, largely from sources which are presumably still copyright". The fair use rationale is strong but is highly subjective - the community view is important here.

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. You did not answer my question "Where has it previously been suggested that the article Genocide definitions be deleted?"

2. What do you mean by "very subjective question"? how is "Why have you (yourself -- not other people) raised Genocide definitions as an article for deletion. What are (your not other people's) specific objections to the article?" a subjective question? If that question (number 2) is not subjective please answer it, as I assume that you did not wake up this morning and decide to do this on a whim. -- PBS (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3. You clearly know little about copyright infringement. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright and more specifically Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text 2 and then if you think that there is any copyright violation follow the procedures in Wikipedia:Copyright violations and Wikipedia:Copyright problems AfD is not the place to resolve copyright issues (which you would know if you had read Wikipedia:Copyright violations). -- PBS (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Oncenawhile: you write above Definitions of terrorism#Scholars and recognized experts on terrorism, although a section not an article, should also be considered. considered for what? -- PBS (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. In other words, if the community decides that the three articles should be deleted, then this section being very similar may need to suffer the same fate. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Oncenawhile:

Usually that would be dealt with on the talk page of the article that contains the section. Under what justification or president do you think that AfD is an appropriate place to discuss the deletion of a section of an article not up for deletion?
A more interesting question (because it will help explain your thought on the issue): Why just the section Scholars and recognized experts on terrorism and not the whole Definitions of terrorism article? I ask this because you seem to be objecting to the format not the content of the articles in which case AfD is not the correct forum. -- PBS (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. Not sure what's going on here, but it does not make sense. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep all This is not the place for general debates, it's for per-policy deletion discussions. The topics are notable, encyclopedic, subject of significant debate in reliable sources, and important; the definition of genocide is an obviously notable topic. It's not OR or a dictionary def, and this isn't the place for reporting copyright transgressions. Bundling complex articles like this isn't productive and will not help resolve complex issues. If you have a specific policy issue you think should be debated (e.g. should we have "list of definitions" articles), there are better forums for that. And you can't nominate a section of an article for deletion here. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Colapeninsula. Which forum do you suggest we go to in order to reach consensus on "should we have "list of definitions" articles"? Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), perhaps? If people think that's a better forum, i'd be happy with a speedy keep here, and I'll opennit up there. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, when i wrote "speedy keep", I would be just as happy with "speedy close". I just want to reach a position that User:Zargulon is happy with and also reflects the wider community's view. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]

User:Colapeninsula, please see my comment to Galassi here below. Zargulon (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close This strikes me as a classic example of WP:POINT. No actual grounds for deletion have been given by the proposer, and the articles would each need to be discussed on their merits - they differ substantially in structure. There are clear copyright issues with the Definitions of pogrom article, as discussed at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Copyright concerns at Definitions of pogrom, but these may possibly be rectified by rewriting the article in a manner which rectifies the excessive use of quotations - which would hopefully also resolve the WP:NOTDIC objections raised in the recent AfD discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close Why nominate at virtually the same time three articles that seem to be closely related? More than anything else, this sounds to me like trying to eliminate information/subjects that someone wants to pretend do not exist.Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not commenting on whether they should be deleted or not for now, but it's clear that if one of these should go then all three should go, at least under a WP:NAD rationale and probably almost any rationale that covers one would cover the others. I think we can assume that these nominations were made in good faith. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 15:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Oncenawhile: you wrote at the top Various editors have proposed that lists of definitions for complex or disputed words should not exist on wikipedia. which editors where? -- PBS (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and close. Looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Galassi (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's much worse than that, User:Galassi.. Once is trying to get the content of his WP:POVFORK article Definitions of pogrom validated by attaching it to the stable articles Definitions of fascism and Genocide definitions. In order to prevent this I suggest you change your "Speedy keep and close" to "speedy close", since this isn't an AfD, it's an abuse of process. Zargulon (talk)

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.