Deletion of List of massacres (2nd nomination)

Comment: no reasonable criteria for inclusion. Categories exist. Also 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:WTA)

Comment: Exactly '''WHY''' is this being nominated?  This is a well sourced and presented list.  I see it was nominated only 8 weeks ago for AFD and was kept (albeit by no consensus).  What has changed since the last nomination to make it a sure fire deletion?  Or is the nom trying to prove a |point
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: Never going to be a viable article. The number of potential entries is ridiculously large. Just cataloguing all the car-bombings in Iraq and the mass killings in Algeria in the 90s is going to be a nightmare. You might as well try compiling a List of murders. Then, of course, the very culture of Wikipedia makes this kind of article impossible. It's a POV-magnet. There'll be archives and archives of edit wars between |soapboxers and others over whether an incident was a massacre or not - plus plenty of  violations guaranteed. A complete black hole for everybody's time and effort. (PS: I see there's been an attempt to limit this: "This is a list of events which are known by the word "massacre" in their name". That's really very arbitrary and it won't fly,  per Ledenierhomme
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAPBOX||WP:POINT)

Comment: The article has recently undergone a period of instability. Having just agreed criteria after long and patient discussion, we are now starting to make it into a useful resource. Like many list articles on Wikipedia it will likely never be complete, but so what? If it can remain stable and well-referenced, there is no reason to delete. I hate to say it but the nomination comes after the nominator tried three times to add an event which falls outside the criteria we agreed. This makes the nomination look rather |pointy. Next time, try a post on the discussion page rather than going straight to AfD, especially as it is so soon after a much poorer version of the article survived a previous nomination
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)