Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Targeting civilians

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 to merge the article into Civilian casualties. --  Denelson83  23:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Targeting civilians

This is just a definition. It also smells strongly of a POV fork Avi 16:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep article on offense. No bloviating about Lebanon 2006, though. Citable cases of prosecutions or security council actions on these grounds are ok subjects for this article. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as below, better. - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it is just a word definition. If a list were to be complied of all the alledged violations or all the countries with a policy on it then it would be a very long list indeed. Better to make notes on allegations of targetting civilians in pages on specific conflicts and have specific pages for peices international legislation. Thefuguestate 16:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - It may be only a definition now, but it's valuable subject matter and the article should be expanded to give more infromation (what part of the geneva conventions, a couple notable examples, reactions by other countries, etc). --Daniel Olsen 18:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - For it to be a WP:POV fork, it would have to take a particular side in a controversy. Avi has not said what side he thinks the article takes. And the only reason I haven't expanded it further is that I hate working on articles only to have them deleted as "forks" when they are really "spin-off" articles. --Uncle Ed 18:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef stub, with no clear path for expansion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, if it became more than a dicdef, it would have a really strange scope. Topic is better handled elsewhere, I'm sure. Merge to civilian casualties. I knew it was handled better elsewhere! Recury 20:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge encyclopedic quality content into civilian casualties, per Kirill Lokshin. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to civilian casualties, which could really use some material on the relevant international laws and so forth. This is a pretty major concept way before the incidents mentioned in the stub (e.g. the Hostages Trial). Kirill Lokshin 20:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge An unencyclopedic and pov title but some of the content seems acceptable.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Kirill Lokshin (but leave out the POV qualifier: "and is specifically condemned by leaders of the Western world such as America and Israel.") Yomangani^talk 23:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That's not non-neutral. It ascribes the opinion to the people who espouse it, rather than presenting it as Wikipedia's own. Neutrality is about not having Wikipedia adopt a side as its own in any given discussion. What it is is unsourced and potentially original research, and in need of of a {{who}}. Uncle G 09:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, which is why I didn't say "leave out the non-NPOV qualifier" - if they source it they can put it back in. Yomangani^talk 21:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Calling it "POV" instead of "non-NPOV" is a respelling without a difference, and doesn't change the fact that the problem is lack of sourcing, not non-neutrality. Uncle G 13:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a legal concept distinct from civilian casualty. "Targeting" means doing it knowingly and intentionally. That has legal, moral, and political consequences beyond those present in inadvertent killing of civilians while targeting enemy soldiers. Michael Hardy 01:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you perhaps thinking of collateral damage? The civilian casualty article includes everything from accidental death to massacres of civilians in WWII, so it's hardly limited to "inadvertent" deaths. Kirill Lokshin 01:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete its a gerund, which is nonsensical as an encyclopedia article title --Musaabdulrashid 03:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Singing and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs) disagree. Uncle G 16:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • singing and swimming would agree with you, but they dont have the high possibility of being POV as this does. Non-verbs are much more neutral sounding. --Musaabdulrashid 20:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, probably easier to develop at Civilian casualties. Sandstein 04:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into civilain casulty. If the section gets to big it can branch off into trageting civilians. Jon513 10:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Kirill Lockshin, it doesn't seem to be a concept that merits a distinct article from civilian casualtys. Tewfik^Talk 03:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Current contents is basicly a dicdef with a few usages, and no clear idea of how the article might be expanded. DJ Clayworth 18:18, 21 August 2006 (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.