Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definitions of Pogrom
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
— User:IZAK, 04:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NOTPAPER||WP:RS||WP:V (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)