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 keep. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Classicide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable term used in very few sources, attempted PROD rejected on grounds of notability. Just because a term is used doesn't mean it is notable enough for its own entry in the encyclopedia.

A google search for the term, minus references to the Eclipse IDE (which uses the term in a different way related to programming classes) returns less than 9000 hits, most of them citation of the same few works.

At best, merger into Michael Mann could be a compromise, but I do not see the encyclopedic value of this in wikipedia. Maybe wikitionary would - as the term is not a hoax or an internet neologism, but I do not think this is the case here. Cerejota (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a side note, article was created and largely only edited by a blocked sock. So there is that element.--Cerejota (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per "neologism". The term was coined by Mann in 2005, but there has not become accepted and there is no literature that builds on his concept. TFD (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe merge to the article on class conflict? --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with the nominator that the term is not an internet neologism. WP:NEO would only apply here if there were no reliable secondary sources with material about the term (rather than just using the term). The term is used in relatively few sources because it is a narrow term competing with others in a specialized field: genocide studies. However, the google search link above shows that it has a number of sources[1][2][3] which meet Wikipedia's Notability criteria of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (that is, sources which address "...the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."). I would have made this into a redirect to Mass killings under Communist regimes myself, but there is enough material out there for an article. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically your sources are all saying that the term was coined by Mann to denote killing classes. That may meet the bar for Wiktionary, but is not sufficient for an encyclopedia. TFD (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the sources I linked (which were just the best quality sources from the first page of results from the above google search link) provide much more information than that, including: the rationale for the term, historical examples and their context, criticism of the term, and its inter-relationship with other aspects of mass killing. There's more than enough material to meet Wikipedia's minimum standards. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your examples are from sections of books explaining terminology. You have failed to show that any books or articles have been written about the subject. That makes it a dictionary entry. Even the "Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence" you provide as a source lists it in the glossary section. TFD (talk) 03:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, it's a term, TFD. It makes sense that it would be explained (at length) in sections about terminology. And, as I quoted above from our Notability policy: coverage in reliable sources "need not be the main topic of the source material." If you read the policy, there really just has to be enough to enable us to avoid original research when writing the article. In this case, there are several pages worth of material from those three sources alone. These aren't the only sources out there, I'm sure, but they're more than enough by themselves to justify keeping the article. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • The relevant policy is "Wikipedia is not a dictionary." There is no possibility of expanding the article beyond a stub or beyond what Wiktionary would include, unless it becomes a tendentious coatrack. TFD (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • None of the three sources I linked to were dictionaries, and all of them provided far more information than a dictionary definition. You misrepresented them earlier when you said that "Basically your sources are all saying that the term was coined by Mann to denote killing classes", so why should anyone take your word for the possibilities of the article? AmateurEditor (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • I did not say they were dictionaries, I said the definitions are "from sections of books explaining terminology." IOW the books each contain a section explaining terminology. One of those terms is "classicide." The entry in the last source is in a "glossary." "A glossary...is an alphabetical list of terms in a particular domain of knowledge with the definitions for those terms. Traditionally, a glossary appears at the end of a book and includes terms within that book that are either newly introduced, uncommon, or specialized." IOW it is a dictionary within a book. And please cease your personal attacks and concentrate on the discussion. TFD (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Let's not buy the "dictionary definition" trap. WP:DICDEF forbids the creation of articles that look like mere dictionary definition. Words describing notable concepts are perfectly allowed. As WP:NEO states: To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term - That's exactly what we have here: sources discussing the term or concept, not merely using it. As such it is a notable concept, and an article is perfectly allowed. --cyclopia^speak! 18:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please show in what way this term is notable? Worthy of an encyclopedic entry? I disagree that we have have sufficient coverage of the term in notable RS to warrant its inclussion as an stand-alone article. I think TFD does make a very good case above for that - but on top of that the issue is that notability is not the only criteria for inclusion. Is this article anything other than a tendentious coatrack waiting to happen? I think so - because the term is not used outside a very small minority of genocide scholars, and is basically controversial. Lets be clear - this information DOES belong in wikipedia. It just doesn't belong in its own article. --Cerejota (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable in the way that it meets WP:GNG: we have more than 1 RS that discusses the concept. That is enough, unless you very clearly show that it doesn't fit with other policies, or that there is a sound and reasonable merge target. Now, the term may be controversial and whatever, but this is entirely irrelevant. We report controversial, minority and even plain wrong craziness, as long as it is notable. Notable nonsense is still notable. You are quite clearly stating that you do not like the concept -fine with me, but "I don't like it" is not a reason to delete. --cyclopia^speak! 14:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the spirit nor the word of GNG says that something is notable simply by being discussed in more than one RS. You seriously do not understand notability. I agree we "report controversial, minority and even plain wrong craziness" but not all of it in stand-alone articles, nor is notability the single criteria. --Cerejota (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I do have some understanding of notability -I participated to a lot of AfD's through the years. But anyway GNG states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." -Did it? Let's check sources independent from the inventor of the term. [4]: a chapter titled for the topic, with several pages devoted to the topic. [5]: different author, same kind of coverage. [6]: a section devoted to classicide in China. [7]: Entry on a peer-reviewed academic online encyclopedia (not a wiki). So we have lots of reliable sources, with in-depth discussion of the topic, from several authors. The concept clearly is notable, and no policy-based reasonable justification has been made for not allowing it to have its own article. --cyclopia^speak! 00:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand the difference between a topic and a term? And can you present any sources that will provide a basis for an article rather than an explanation of what the term means? TFD (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One could argue that "explanation of what the term means" are basically the basis of all articles about concepts. Our articles about marxism, fascism and the like are, at the bottom, explanations of what the term/concept means. What does happiness mean? There's an article about that. Now, "classicide" is a concept and a term that has been used to call this concept. Take this source for example. It refers to the "idea" of classicide and the "concept" of classicide. It then debates why the concept is problematic. It makes examples from the Rwanda conflict and the early Soviet union. That's much, much more than a simple dictionary definition of a term. Take also this: here the concept is refuted, with similar arguments, again with examples and theoretical discussion. Here we have three full pages dedicated to the concept, with thorough discussion and critique, again with examples and discussion from the Soviet Union and Mao's China, for example. All these sources are by far beyond "what the term means", they are about the concept of classicide's in historical context and how is it a good/bad concept in the field. All of this means that (i)the concept has entered the academic discourse (even if to criticize it) (ii)that the concept has been discussed in depth and critiqued -that it isn't merely a technical run of the mill term, but a concept, so much of a concept that most scholars seem to reject it (not that it makes it any less notable).--cyclopia^speak! 09:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I'm finding discussion among multiple different secondary sources at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, TFD states: "The term was coined by Mann in 2005", are you kidding? Frederick Schwarz's 1972 book The three faces of revolution discusses "classicide" on pages 51 to 53:

"Genocide is not essential to communism but classicide is. In practice, the borderline between genocide and classicide is sometimes hard to determine as Khrushchev reveals when he tells how Stalin deported and practically exterminated ..."[8].

--Nug (talk) 09:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mann says he coined the term and the secondary sources presented support his claim. That does not mean that no one else had ever thought to add the suffix "cide" to the noun "class." I am curious that you would be familiar with the works of Fred Schwarz, founder of the "Christian Anti-Communism Crusade." I doubt Mann would have read his books, and hope you are not suggesting we use them as sources. Do you really want the article to say the term was not coined by a respected sociologist, but by a conspiracy theorist? TFD (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really want the article to say the term was not coined by a respected sociologist, but by a conspiracy theorist? What kind of question is that? Nug found that the term has been previously coined by this guy, so well yes, if it is sourced (and it seems it is) this should be reported in the article -no matter how nuts he was. We do not report what we "want" the article to say, we report what sources say.--cyclopia^speak! 18:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable soruces say Mann coined the term. As Nug has pointed out, nonetheless, the term was previously used in a forgotten book by a conspiracy theorist. My approach would be to ignore Schwartz, which reliable sources have. But whatever we do, it points to "classicide" being a more suited to Wiktionary. TFD (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This "more suited to Wiktionary" drivel makes no sense in the face of the sourcing presented - pages of academic discussion of a topic are hardly suited in Wiktionary. The Schwartz book is anyway a primary source for previous coinage of the term, even if academic sources then use the Mann concept and attribute it to him. --cyclopia^speak! 19:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we are writing a dictionary, then it is acceptable to look for previous uses of a term. But if we are writing an encyclopedia, then presumably we are discussing a concept and have no sources that Schwartz's writings form part of the academic literature on classicide. But again the "pages of academic discussion" of the topic are really just glossary entries. TFD (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop fabricating stuff. Nowhere in Schwartz's bio does it mention he was a "conspiracy theorist". In fact luminaries like Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley held him in high regard. The point is that something clearly used in 1972 cannot be regarded as a "neologism". --Nug (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So now pages of theoretical discussion of a concept are "just glossary entries". Okay. I'm no more assuming good faith, TFD. For some unfathomable reason you just don't want the article here; at least find a better excuse. --cyclopia^speak! 20:23, 7 April 2014 (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.