Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Government by assassination

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 Stubify. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Government by assassination (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)

WP:OR. This is nothing more than a list of books that are vaguely about the same time period as a book called Government by Assassination. It's certainly a catchy title for a book, but that doesn't make its thesis notable or important. Other than the statement, "Government by assassination has been used to describe a political situation" (which is cited to the author of the book), it is unreferenced and simply the original thesis of the editor. Shii (tock) 08:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to February 26 Incident, which has the phrase "government by assassination" in the lead, followed by "citation needed". If someone wants to do a full article on the book, they can revive it. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Stubify -- The difficulty with "merge" is that the term covers two attempted coups, not one. The problem is that the article can never be more than a one paragraph stub covering the two coups. The list of books does not belong; and it is unsatifactory to merge the articles on the two "incidents" (attempted coups) into one article. However, if the term is in use we ought to ahve something explaining it. The best solution that I can suggest is that we should reduce it to a stub, operating as a sab-page for the two "incidents". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Disagree that the current stub is OR; although coined by a particular journalist, a Google Books search will show that the term gained traction elsewhere. Also should not be merged with February 26 Incident as there is insufficient overlap, IMHO. Although the current article only mentions two incidents, the term covers roughly twenty, such as the League of Blood Incident. Could likely be rewritten as a standalone article using a more encyclopedic title such as "Political Violence in Early Showa Japan". Cckerberos (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be a totally different article IMHO. A good start would be deleting or userfying this one Shii (tock) 21:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • How so? The phrase "government by assassination" is just a catchy term for the period from 1930 to 1936 in which Japanese nationalists and militarist engaged in a series of terrorist attacks and coup attempts against the government. That's exactly what "Political Violence in Early Showa Japan" would cover, I think. Cckerberos (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • To back up the above and confirm that nothing in the article is OR, here are relevant references from the first page of Google Books search results: [1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7]
      • To clarify, I mean that the article is a stub based on a false premise (that the term "government by assassination" is the generally accepted term and not a mere catchphrase). So, it should be rewritten. Shii (tock) 23:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Stubify per rationale of Peterkingiron--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2015 (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.