Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omnicide

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Human extinction. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 10:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Omnicide

Omnicide (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Not notable neologism that seems to be derived from the title of a single book. Possibly advert for that book. Selket ^Talk 07:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, I cat-ed this page, but on closer examination, it appears to be a fairly non-notable neologism. Lankiveil 09:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
• Comment: 111 google scholar hits, some predating the book. Pavel Vozenilek 15:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Human extinction possibly? FiggyBee 15:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: The word is in general use, albiet rare, and dates back at least to 1959; see the Oxford English Dictionary. Definitely not an advert for the book, sorry if it seemed that way. Relevant in the context of genocide studies. I can improve this page in a few days. Chris Powell 17:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I've improved the page slightly by adding more citations to use and two category links. It is still a stub and needs expansion, but I hope it's now evident by that this is not a one-of neologism? Christopher Powell 17:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect and mention in human extinction. — Omegatron 19:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect/merge with human extinction. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: The concept is relevant in social sciences, where there is some literature around it, and ideally it deserves its own page. It is more of a sociology stub than a linguistics stub. But since I am not personally conversant in that literature and so not able to do the work, I will concede if the editors wish to remove it to the human extinction page for the time being. Christopher Powell 05:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Ok, I have made some edits and the page is now a bit more substantial, so I would like to advocate for its retention. 'Omnicide' is an obscure concept, but that's not unusual for encyclopedia entries. Christopher Powell 16:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the recent improvements (see diff). The use of the term in multiple book/journal article titles suggests it is not a neologism per WP:NEO and discredits the notion that its intent is to advertise a single book. -- Black Falcon 21:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment to the closing admin. I just noticed that the bulk of the changes (see diff) occurred after users FiggyBee, Omegatron, and Smmurphy had commented. The version they commented on was this, for which I too would have suggested merging/redirecting. -- Black Falcon 21:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: seems to be well-written, but is there a need for more than one article on the same subject? One possible resolution might be to merge the articles by replacing the first section of the human extinction article with the content of the omnicide article; however, there are other possible ways to merge the articles as well. 38.100.34.2 21:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • My hesitance about a merge between the two is that "omnicide", unlike "human extinction", is a rather specialised term. Although the two are essentially synonymous, omnicide should not be presented as a (or the) commonly-accepted term. -- Black Falcon 00:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten, with kudos to Christopher Powell for his work on the article. My understanding is that the term is distinct from the broader "human extinction". It is also notable (per the multiple sources), so I think a separate article is appropriate.--Kubigula (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Human extinction; move any additional content there. I don't think the terms are sufficiently independent to require separate articles. Mike Christie (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. As I understand it, omnicide is the deliberate killing of the human race by humans, while human extinction is any scenario that leads to the wiping out of the species. So, omnicide should certainly be mentioned/discussed in the human extinction article, but they are different concepts. Merge and redirect is not a bad solution. However, human extinction is getting to be a pretty long article and the normal practice is to break out individual notable elements if an article starts to get too long. Based on the references provided, it seems (at least to me) that omnicide is a sufficiently notable concept to justify a separate article with room for expansion.--Kubigula (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Yes, these are separate concepts, in the way that 'human fatality' and 'homicide' are separate concepts. Christopher Powell 04:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.