- 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. j⚛e deckertalk 16:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Palestinian stone-throwing (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)
This is simply a neologisms, just a collection of random sources. We could just as well have an article on Israeli child killing, Huldra (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Jinkinson just actually redirected your fictionally-illustratively-absurd-link which rightly points out the absurdity of this topic to the more neutral and inclusive Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, do you want a large picture or a detail? Not redirecting it would encourage its creation at some later date.--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Palestinian Stone-throwing is not a neologism.ShulMaven (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Debresser (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Stone-throwing has been embraced as a tactic and a social form of expression by Palestinian youth. The issue has received much media attention over the years and especially lately. So notable. Debresser (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Lots of coverage about this in the article and easily accessible in the first few pages of ghits. In fact, here's a story posted just today by RT about how Israel passed a law to contend with this very phenomenon. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I also wanted to add to my previous commentary that there are many sources. Debresser (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Palestinians, see Gaza Strip, definitely use asymmetric tactics to cast themselves falsely as the victim through the absorption of collateral damage (unnecessary loss of civilian life). This information exists elsewhere and is redundant. There are other concerns with this article that need to be addressed including the use of Wikipedia as a platform for special-interest. These may be news stories, and opinions, but they need not be included in an encyclopedia. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow me to say that your first sentence looks very forum-like to me. Of course it's your choice, while you don't offend anybody. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I created a forum-like comment intentionally, the article itself is a forum-like entry and that is in part why it needs to be deleted. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lfrankbalm: Redundant to what article? If the article has POV issues, tag it as such, take it up on the talk page, and if need be take it to WP:NPOVN, but that shouldn't matter to AfD. Likewise an analysis or opinion on the tactic/phenomenon itself is irrelevant to the discussion. The question is whether it is sufficiently covered in reliable sources. If there are sufficient news stories, that and not the opinion of our editors, determines what's included in the encyclopedia. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Redundant to the many entries that relate to this contentious topic. This is a subset of information already covered in at least SEVEN! existing Wikipeida articles based on a Google Search.22:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk)
- Which? --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Palestinian stone-throwing" site:en.wikipedia.org --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. Inherently tendentious, as would be an article called Israeli gun shooting coatracking violence perpetrated by the Israeli side in this ongoing civil war. Carrite (talk) 07:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete. Unecyclopedic and POV, per Carrite and User:Lfrankbalm. This application of stoning is a subset of Israeli occupation and Palestinian resistance and belongs in a relevant article on that subject.Bjenks (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, because here is the lede to Stoning: "Stoning, or lapidation, is a form of capital punishment whereby a group throws stones at a person until death ensues." An entirely different topic.ShulMaven (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Because: Palestinian stone-throwing, a phenomenon closely associated with the First Palestinian Intifada], has been the subject of scholarly analysis in the among students of the Arab-Israeli conflict, of the development of Palestinian identity, and of asymmetric warfare. In addition, of course, to being part of the conflict itself. See not only the extensive list of articles that link to this article, but the number of articles by contemporary journalists dedicated to the topic, of which Amira Hass' Inner syntax of Palestinian stone-throwing [1] is perhaps the most iconic.ShulMaven (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- -as mentioned it is adequately an redundantly covered elsewhere per your find on the First Palestinian Intifada] above.. perhaps we should throw stones at Wikipedia so the same things can be said many times in many venues.--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- no because: Palestinian stone throwing is ongoing phenom, not confined to First IntifadaShulMaven (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- as mentioned it can be found 'at least SEVEN TIMES', the consensus seems to be keep so I am sure the article will be kept.. Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument by ShulMaven is completely correct, and this subject is not confined to the First Intifada and clearly deserves its own article. Debresser (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I guess then Stone-throwing by undercover Israeli combatants should soon be an article, too? Interesting subject, no? Huldra (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So there are 9,470 hits for "Palestinian stone throwing" (+wikipedia). Guess what: there are 211 000 google-hits for "kill the Arabs" (+wikipedia). Lots of international reports about crowds in Jlem and Tel Aviv shouting it. I guess Kill the Arabs! will be your next article, then? Huldra (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "9,470 "Palestinian throw stones" - (not+) wikipedia" was only addition for "92,600 results".
- You may compare 211k for your "kill the Arabs" -(!)wikipedia)" results with 338k for "kill the Jews" -wikipedia one.
- Similar:
- So? Moreover, only an absolute minority of Jews act with such calls and they just dispersed by police. Can you give similar data for the Arabs and their official heads, say in the PNA, Gaza and other Arab countries? --Igorp_lj (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Good Lord. I just noticed that my above suggestion for article creation, Israeli child killing..is no longer red-linked. <facepalm> Huldra (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Ghits are indeed not a good measure of notability. What is a good measure is the amount of coverage the subject gets in reliable sources, and as demonstrated above that coverage exists. "Kill the Arabs" is a phrase rather than a concept, and Palestinian stone-throwing is not a run of the mill activity such that you could put any group of people before "stone-throwing" and find sources talking about it as a subject (not just using the phrase). --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- We agree about one thing: Ghits are not a good measure of notability. But I don´t understand how you can argue that "Kill the Arabs" is "just" a phrase: no, it is not, not when there are dozens, if not hundreds, of WP:RS sources reporting on groups shouting it. That is an act, just as stone-throwing is an act. And hardly a run of the mill act, either. Huldra (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but remove non-notable incidents. Sources seem to indicate that this is a thing. But the article shouldn't be a memorial to people killed by stones. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Surprised to see this up for deletion - it's a very well known part of the conflict, and a specific type of violence in the conflict – we have articles on several other specific types of violence, including Targeted killings by Israel Defense Forces, the Price tag policy, Israeli settler violence, Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, so I see no reason why this commonplace one should be ignored. Number 57 21:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Please note that inclusion of hateful topics does not imply any endorsement of their utility nor of the ideology; Wikipedia should not be censored without a very strong reason. Based on the available sources, no reasonable person could disagree that this is a notable topic. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a method of rioting by Palestinians for years. Its covered by the press constantly and has been ongoing for many years. To me this meets all the criteria for an article. - Galatz (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As I just wrote on the article's talk page (with references), Ed Said said when he was photographed throwing rocks at an Israeli checkpoint, that it was symbolic gesture of joy at the end of Israel's occupation of Lebanon. So at least for some, including Said, throwing stones into Israel and at Israelis is a "symbolic gesture." That means it is more than simple rockthrowing and warrants an article of its own. The article does need some work, though. Gearsagnes (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I can't believe this is even being debated... Djcheburashka (talk) 01:15, 10 November 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.