Deletion of Definitions of Pogrom

Comment: Clear violation of  and cherry picking various sources to create  violation
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:NPOV)

Comment: merge into Pogrom struck "merge" as it's already there per  because the sources do not show the subject rises to the level of a word or phrase that itself may be an encyclopedic subject.  The article is quite probably a  and has  problems too.  Any ongoing history between Once and other editors is irrelevant to an AFD discussion, and pointing to the status of other articles is of course no AFD argument at all per .Per , sources need to be provided that show that the definition of the term itself can be an encyclopedic topic and can support a discussion of the social or historical significance of the ''term'', enough to fill out a real independent encyclopedia article.  Specifically  says, "While published dictionaries may be useful sources for lexical information on a term, the presence of a term in a dictionary does not by itself establish notability."  Now, take a look at what's in this article:  A brief discussion of the scholarly use of the term (could easily be in Pogrom), followed by a huge list of dictionary definitions and hand-picked quotes, which are, of course, .  The observations that the article is made up almost entirely of  and other  wouldn't normally hold weight at an AFD discussion but they must be raised here because someone reviewing the article looking for support of its thesis needs to throw out all the , which would leave the article just a few paragraphs.  Once points to "all the very clear sources..." and the article is impressive in size and number of refs, but has almost zero encyclopedic content actually on the article's topic.Once raises a parallel between this article and, for example Definitions of terrorism.  Putting  aside, the difference between the topic of that article and this one is that ''the definition of terrorism'' itself is the subject of notable academic coverage.  Whether something is or is not ''terrorism'' and is therefore covered by international crime law or the Geneva Convention or would make the testimony obtained with "enhanced interrogation techniques" admissable is a very notable topic.  A careful examination of the number and depth of coverage of the sources in that article as compared to this one show the parallel proposed between the articles isn't supported by the sourcing.I do give Once credit for compiling this list of research, it's actually a very good list of sources to use to develop the Pogrom article, but shouldn't be an article in itself
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF||WP:POVFORK||WP:COPYVIO||WP:OTHERSTUFF||WP:DICDEF||WP:DICDEF||WP:SYNTH||WP:SYNTH||WP:OR||WP:OR||WP:OTHERSTUFF)

Comment: While editors may disagree with the ''contents'' of this article, and I am not saying I agree with all the content, but the objective of creating an article with this title should not be problematic and editors who feel it's contents need work or improvement or correction to adhere to  should be part of improving it rather than blowing it out of the water entirely. WP articles are not born "perfect" and quite often articles are created by editors from one POV, that then draws in editors from an opposing POV, and together they can hopefully create a truly NPOV article at the end of the day, rather than destroying a good topic. By now in 2013, not all varieties and definitions of the word "Pogrom" are the same since that term was first introduced from Eastern European origins when the Czars of Russia incited Cossacks to kill Jews for no reasons, actually because of antisemitism. Today the word "pogrom" like the word "holocaust" has broadened in usage and in its definitions to include a variety of fatal attacks against any type of ethnic or religious groups singled out for discrimination and attack
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: per  and . Before reading this article, I read through Pogrom, which is a well-organized presentation of 1) the etymology of the word "pogrom", 2) the use of the word to describe violence against Jews, with a list of incidents in different times and places, 3) the expansion of the term to apply to violence against non-Jews. Nowhere do I see, as Definitions of Pogrom states, that "There is no academic consensus regarding the definition of the term 'pogrom'". This article appears to be a content fork that really isn't necessary, as I will soon explain. The whole tone of Definitions of Pogrom is wishy-washy and hair-splitting. What's the point? Every Jew knows exactly what a pogrom is. The other "Definitions of" articles, such as those on fascism and terrorism, deal with the nuances of philosophy and expression of the "ism", while this article just reads like a dictionary debate. The article is also limited to the point of view of English-language academic sources. Knowing the broader treatment of The Holocaust|Holocaust studies in Hebrew (language)|Hebrew, I wonder if the Israelis debate the definition of the word "pogrom" as vociferously as the Americans
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks (WP:FORK||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: into Pogrom per ,  and particularly 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF||WP:FORK||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: The author of this amazing article spent an inordinate amount of time grinding a very large axe, selectively adducing various sources in order to try to support how this, that or the other is not a "pogrom" in some sense.  The point of this is utterly unclear - after all, for each given incident we can always tell the reader what happened and what the motivations were, use the common moniker for the event in the article title, and let the reader decide how to characterize what happened - a pogrom, a series of murders, a minor kerfuffle, or a birthday party that got out of hand.  I particularly enjoyed how 1918 Lwow is not a pogrom because xyz, while 1919 Pinsk is not a pogrom because abc "unlike Lemberg" - that gave me a chuckle.  Is this kind of crap covered under  or do I need a more precise policy justification? :) The author should seriously consider turning his or her considerable talents to some worthwhile goal, instead of this ineffective attempt at a  of Pogrom.  (And no, do not merge into Pogrom because the usage of the term is already adequately covered in that article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:FORK)

Comment: because '''(a)''' this is truly encyclopedic, '''(b)'''  and '''(c)''' it cites  and is , while '''(d)''' the main Pogrom article does not have enough room for this kind of research (which does not seem to be "original" as the nominator alleges --unless he can cite some good historical counter-arguments not based on WP rules alone.) Bottom line, '''(e)''' this is a good addition to the :Category:Definitions and its growing list of "Definitions of ____" articles on WP, such as Definitions of Palestine; Definitions of fascism; Definitions of science fiction; Definitions of Japanese war crimes, etc etc etc. True, this article can use much polishing and improvement as it does show some sort of bias to de-emphasize a Jewish historical POV, but fair and knowledgeable editors, including the nominator, could easily fix that with some skillful NPOV editing. Thank you
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPAPER||WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: For an article like this to pass  and  there would need to be at least one significant scholarly work '''entirely devoted to the question of "definitions of pogrom"'''. That there isn't, doesn't surprise me.. just because there may be some disagreement between people on what it applies to doesn't mean that any of them considers there to be an important question of definition
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:FRINGE)