Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definitions of Pogrom
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
— User:Zad68, 03:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:DICDEF||WP:POVFORK||WP:COPYVIO||WP:OTHERSTUFF||WP:DICDEF||WP:DICDEF||WP:SYNTH||WP:SYNTH||WP:OR||WP:OR||WP:OTHERSTUFF (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary)