Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slow genocide

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 merge to Genocide. Sandstein 21:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slow genocide[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basically a dicdef, tagged as orphaned for 6 years Staszek Lem (talk) 01:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikitionary, as it is mostly a definition. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to persecution or genocide. The idea that this is a dictionary definition is nonsense. The topic is not a word and the title is a phrase, not a word. I suppose it's the usual confusion per WP:DICDEF, "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written;" The concept appears in a variety of papers and so deletion is not appropriate when there are sensible alternatives: The slow-burning genocide of Myanmar's Rohingya;A slow industrial genocide;A slow-motion genocide;Slow genocide: The dynamics of violence and oppression in refugee camps and American ghettos; Last Exit from the Kalahari. The Slow Genocide of the Bushmen/Sa;Israel's Slow-Motion Genocide in Occupied Palestine. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
is a dictionary definition is nonsense - it is your idea is nonsense: dictionaries do cover phrases and whole sentences. "Appears in a variety of papers" is an invalid argument. Every phrase is in variety of papers. Also "another perennial source of confusion" is that you can make a wikipedia article from a bunch of usage examples. We do not have articles frog eaters or slow burning conflict, right? Staszek Lem (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, per Staszek to be honest. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, there are wikipedians smarter than me, who created redirects from my red links. Well, I beat them with at least one :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and delete. I agree, this is nothing more than a broad journalistic phrase rather than a specific sociopolitical concept. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to genocide. Obvious subtopic that has references which substantiate notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no references, even for the definition. Mere word usage. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to genocide per above Reywas92^Talk 19:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to genocide because there's nothing in the article aside from a short definition. SacredSunflower (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and Merge. Would serve as a good mention in genocide as a perspective on the topic, and an interesting thing to define for Wikitonary. Otherwise, just a definition. Zkidwiki (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.