Deletion of Classicide

Comment: I agree with the nominator that the term is not an internet neologism.  would only apply here if there were no reliable secondary sources with material ''about'' the term (rather than just using the term). The term is used in relatively few sources because it is a narrow term competing with others in a specialized field: genocide studies. However, the google search link above shows that it has a number of sourceshttp://books.google.com/books?id=E0N9AgAAQBAJ&pg=PT43&lpg=PT43&dq=%22Classicide%22+-wikipedia&source=bl&ots=IiHSJJarS2&sig=OMMA4IcBZsjyj-MTVAPqreHezNU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cE47U-noJrLksASVwIH4Cw&ved=0CGUQ6AEwCw#v=onepage&q=%22Classicide%22%20-wikipedia&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=oGqTqgueMt8C&pg=PT65&lpg=PT65&dq=%22Classicide%22+-wikipedia&source=bl&ots=uaSkgc3gXg&sig=WDOr3d3JaF5nmmHDPXFHtRIt-kY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cE47U-noJrLksASVwIH4Cw&ved=0CGAQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=%22Classicide%22%20-wikipedia&f=falsehttp://www.massviolence.org/Classicide which meet Wikipedia's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline Notability criteria of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (that is, sources which address ''"...the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."''). I would have made this into a redirect to Mass killings under Communist regimes myself, but there is enough material out there for an article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: Let's not buy the "dictionary definition" trap.  forbids the creation of articles that look like mere dictionary definition. Words describing notable ''concepts'' are perfectly allowed. As  states: {{tq|To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term}} - That's exactly what we have here: sources '''discussing''' the term or concept, not merely using it. As such it is a |notable concept, and an article is perfectly allowed
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF||WP:NEO||WP:GNG)

Comment: per |"neologism".  The term was coined by Mann in 2005, but there has not become accepted and there is no literature that builds on his concept
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)