Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocides in history

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 22:12, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Genocides in history

This page is a list of genocides in history. The basic format is a wiki link to the existing wikipedia article (say, Boer Wars) followed by a text paragraph on this page explaining why it was genocide. Reasons why I think this page should be deleted: 1) Category:Genocides already exists. Per the ongoing lists vs. categories discussion, adding Category:Genocides to the Boer Wars article itself will attract the attention of the editors who follow that topic. In contrast, adding a link to Boer Wars on this page will not. In the first case, the peer review process is likely to be much more robust. 2) The text blurbs on this page detailing why an indicent was genocide will have no hard linkage with the underlying article's content. This weakens the peer review process. 3) In debates over specific events to include/exclude, the list format makes it much easier for editors to say "Well, if X is on the list, Y should be too. Conversely, if Y doesn't count, then I'm going to remove X from the list now." Using categories forces someone using that argument to separately convince all of the X editors and all of the Y editors. Again, a much more robust peer review process. Feco 12:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - This article is still fuzzy about what is genocide and tends to include any mass murder as a genocide, but I don't see any reason for deletion. Ericd 12:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • • Comment - This was originally a part of Genocide that was splited for unkown reasons. Ericd 12:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — The page will probably always have neutrality issues, but the content and layout appear reasonable for an encyclopedic article. It deserves to be more than just a category. — RJH 15:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, concur with RJH. Categories are not substitutes for pages with explanations. Kappa 20:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to list of genocides Klonimus 02:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, more than a category. — Davenbelle 01:36, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename per Klonimus. Capitalistroadster 03:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, this article needs major NPOVing. I was flabbergasted and alarmed by some of the entries. One such example, the destruction of Persepolis was based on two things - the Greek soldiers in Alexander's army wanting revenge for the Persian destruction of Athens in 480 BCE, and secondly Alexander at that stage of the campaign had not yet become sole ruler of the Persian lands and decided to burn the city in case the remnants of the Persian army was able to retake their capital. Alexander later regretted his actions after the Persian king was murdered. The word Genocide implies that Alexander deliberately set out to kill every Persian yet as we all know he adopted Persian customs and encouraged his soldiers to marry Persians. This to me doesnt sound like a deliberate campaign of genocide. None of this is mentioned in the article. Megan1967 04:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is way too much flame bait POV, article as it stands is not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 03:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per most of the above comments; more may follow. Where can I vfd Feco's page? — 28 Apr 2005
  • (that remark by 203.198.237.30)
    • If you want to VfD Feco's page, you should read the instructions here. Radiant_* 14:35, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure which page of mine 203.198 wants to VfD. Per my original explanation of why I felt this article should be considered by VfDers, I don't think anyone will accuse me of making a bad-faith VfD attempt. I stumbled across a page that has a ton of problems and felt there was a much better way for wiki to address the topic. Alas, it looks like other users don't share my opinion. :( Feco 18:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • An article with substantive or original content, or secondary content collated in an original manner, should not be deleted outright when flaws going only to formal or procedural aspects of the article have been identified. In the first instance, contructive alternatives other than outright deletion should be suggested. The absence of such alternatives stands against deletion in its own right — 9 May 2005.
• Comment. Very fuzzy page; for example, killing 4,000 Sikhs (out of 16-20 million) is a crime, but not an attempted genocide. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• My vote's Keep, but NPOV, but as someone whose forebears were probably responsible ...--Simon Cursitor 07:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Extremely Strong Delete. Way too POV, and will cause several edit wars.
  • Above vote by User:199.164.68.191.
• Delete, most of the claims are not supported by any evidence. JamesBurns 04:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, article appears very selective and loose on what "genocide" is. Iam 11:46, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fuzzy and ambiguous article - there are some entries in there that are not by definition "genocides" thus making it incorrect and POV un-encyclopaedic. Leanne 05:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.