Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian drive-by shooting

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 delete. The core issue here is whether this type of drive-by shooting has received sufficient coverage by sources to allow for a separate article. Even after I discount four "delete" opinions (by Camillo Sanchez, Carrite, 78.100.225.75 and 68.45.109.14) that cite reasons unrelated to Wkipedia policy, such as allegations of racism, a substantial majority of participants (11 to 5) believes that the sourcing is inadequate. Also, two of the five "keeps" are simply "per X", leading me to give them slightly less weight. This leads me to conclude that we have a (if not overwhelming) consensus to delete. This can change if more sources become available, so I'll userfy this on request. Sandstein 06:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian drive-by shooting[edit]

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

Article is one of a number of WP:COATRACKs created recently trying to demonize Palestinians. It fails WP:GNG due to a lack of sources ABOUT the topic specifically. Drive-by shootings do not have nationalities. It also is a major example of taking unrelated topics to make an article, i.e. a WP:synthesis TM 20:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nableezy has struck comments by AMuseo, because AMuseo is a sockpuppet account used to evade a topic ban. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Terrorism.AMuseo (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/IsraelAMuseo (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Palestine.AMuseo (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWikipedia routinely covers tactics used in particular conflicts. For example, Suicide bombings in Iraq since 2003, The Blitz, and Kamikaze. To save time for anyone who wishes to bring up Other StuffExists, I point out that “In general, these deletion debates should focus mainly on the nominated article. In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia.” [1] The discussion of the strategic deployment of a particular tactic (the Drive-by shooting) in a particular violent conflict is a legitimate topic.AMuseo (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- nableezy - 20:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC) 20:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There clearly are sources discussing this specific topic, as the discussion at the article talk page will reveal. See Talk:Palestinian drive-by shooting. The name of the article, coatrack issues, or general POV issues, are resolved with regular editing, not Afd.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the editors intended to create a dispassionate article, it might have called it Drive-by shootings in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rather than trying to place all of the blame on Palestinians. Still, it is not covered directly by sources. Instead, one has to pull secondary information from several sources to prove a political point of view. There are easy to find examples of Israeli's using the same tactic[2]. I am not sure what you mean, Brewcrewer; Coatrack and heavily POV articles always come to AfD--TM 20:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The strategic and political considerations behind the Palestinian decision to use drive-by shootings as a frequent tactic are necessarily their own. Just as the strategic and political considerations that led the Nazis to launch The Blitz are separate form those that led to the British bombing of German targets. Articles that try to cover everything are generally motley or shallow. This is an article about the Palestinian use of drive-by shootings, which has been a notable Palestinian tactic. This does not preculde articles on, for example, the use of drive-by shootings by American Mobsters or Latin American drug gangs.AMuseo (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tactics used in a war are not generally notable; no outside sources cover this topic in detail and there is no proof that drive-by shootings done by Palestinians are any different than those done by Israeli's, Albanians, Fijians or Wikipedians.--TM 21:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a pretty ignorant statement. Just about every tactic used in war is notable enough for a detailed Wikipedia article, from Ambush to Zone defense. They are notable enough that we not only have a category with 71 individual pages for tactics, we have sub categories for Assault tactics, diversionary tactics, etc... There is a considerable differences between Palestinian drive-by shootings and gang drive-by shootings. If you tell me a bit more about Fijian drive-by shootings, perhaps we can intelligently discuss if they are different from Palestinians ones. Otherwise, if its just your personal impression, well then... HupHollandHup (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't have American Ambush or German zone defense etc. - drive by shootings are a notable topic, but specifically Palestinian ones are not. Smartse (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But we do have Israeli checkpoint, and Israeli targeted killings, as well as Drone attacks in Pakistan (which despite its name, is specifically about American drone attacks). Perhaps Fijian drive-by shootings are not notable, but specifically Palestinians ones are, as documented by the numerous sources in the article. HupHollandHup (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference being that those three topics have been discussed as such in reliable sources, while "Palestinian drive-by shootings" have not. Gatoclass (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a concept of its own - not different from regular drive-by shootings. Geschichte (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's clearly incorrect. There are numerous distinctions between the tactic as used by Palestinians (e.g: randomness of the targets, sophistication of the attack and subsequent cover-ups, reactions to the attacks such travel limitations) that clearly set it apart from gang-war related drive by shootings, for example. In any case, we have reliable sources discussing it as a separate concept, so your opinion or mine doesn't matter much. We go by the sources. HupHollandHup (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem being that you don't have a source which actually says that, ie, "that there are numerous distinctions between the tactic as used by Palestinians .... that clearly set it apart". That is just your original research thesis. Gatoclass (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The rationale given by the nominator - 'fails GNG' is false on its face, as evidenced by the numerous sources, including high quality academic publications such as Foreign Affairs, currently used as references. The second claim, that there's 'a lack of sources ABOUT the topic specifically' is equally false. There are at least two such sources, one of them a book by domain experts published by a mainstream press (which I discovered and discussed at length on the Talk page), the other the aforementioned article published in Foreign Affairs. Both of these analyze specifically the use of the tactic BY PALESTINIANS, contrast it with other guerrilla tactics used by groups like Hizbollah, and explain why it was initially a favored tactic, and why it was eventually displaced by suicide terror. The sources provide statistics about fatalities etc.. - and discuss the TOPIC, in detail. The nominator also suggests that 'Drive-by shootings do not have nationalities' - but then he'd be at a loss to explain articles such as Israeli checkpoint, or Israeli targeted killings. HupHollandHup (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article in Foreign Affairs, an article by a former IDF Lieutenant Colonel, mentions drive-by shootings by Palestinians once. The book you say covers this topic also mentions drive by shootings by Palestinians exactly once. Neither of the sources discuss the topic, they say that drive by shootings is a tactic used by Palestinians. That is the whole of the coverage in either of those sources. nableezy - 22:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply false, as the discussions on the Talk page show. Both the article and the book discuss this and other non-suicide tactics used by Palestinian AS A TOPIC, analyze the reasons for their early popularity, provide statistics about their ineffectiveness, and explain the reasons that lead to them being displaced by suicide terror. HupHollandHup (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isnt false and your assertions that it is, much like at the article, are backed by nothing. They certainly discuss other things, but "drive-by shootings" are mentioned once in each. Thats it. nableezy - 23:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've also checked these sources and can confirm that Nableezy is correct - the sources include one sentence about drive by shootings. Smartse (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename and revise the lede to accurately reflect whatever name is settled on. Neither the lede nor the article name properly reflects the contents. The article is about the use of a generic tactic in a particular context. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How would you like American drive-by shooting? or German drive-by shooting? This article kind of scratches on the racist side!.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like them as much as I like Israeli checkpoint, or Israeli targeted killings. Do you think those articles are on the "racist side" too? HupHollandHup (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they are different..they are tangible state policies. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 01:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And these are tangible quasi-state, or organizational, policies. What is the difference? How is an IDF decision to put up a checkpoint different from a Hamas or Fatah decision to conduct a drive-by shooting? More importantly, how is such a difference (assuming it even exists) relevant to the notability of a topic? HupHollandHup (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - went through the sources, and could find no significant coverage of what would be particular about drive-by shootings by Palestinians compared to any other tactics or other drive-by shootings elsewhere. Often, it's just a passing mention in a list of tactics, sometimes it's about a specific event, but nothing covers drive-by shootings in and of themselves. As far as I can see, there is no other equivalent article for other tactics in this conflict, e.g. no Palestinian roadside bombings. There is a Palestinian suicide attacks but it redirects to a list of events. It has no content with respect to the significance or particularity of the tactic in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as opposed to any other conflict involving suicide attacks. So the article under AfD does seem to fail WP:GNG.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Israeli checkpoint, or Israeli targeted killings and tell us what you think. HupHollandHup (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the sources for these two do address the subject of each article in detail and specifically, not in passing mentions or on particular single occurances.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You argued 'there is no other equivalent article for other tactics in this conflict' - I've shown that to clearly be a false statement. Are you ready to strike that out? Then we might start a discussion abut the sourcing for this article, which, contrary to your claim do address the subject of this article in detail and specifically.

Comment - I will not strike it out because a) that is not my main argument, my argument is that it does not pass WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage b) I did qualify my statement as "as far as I can see", looking at Palestinian tactics in particular. None of the sources in the article under AfD cover the subject like, say footnote 20 of Israeli targeted killings does for its subject. Here, Israeli courts have looked into the legality of the tactic itself and made a judgement. So the subject, in and of itself, has a whole, has notability. For drive-by shootings, we have zero sources examining them as a whole, just passing mentions in a list of tactics, or reports of specific drive-bys. That is not evidence of notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you qualified it with "as far as I can see", and I've now shown that you have not looked closely or carefully enough - and yet you still won't strike out that plainly false statement. If it is not your main argument - all the more reason to strike it out when it is shown to be false. I can't compel you to do so, of course, but I can certainly call out your refusal to do so, in the hopes that those reading your argument will take your lack of integrtity into consideration. As to the rest of your comments - they indicate you have not bothered to actually read the sources for this article. Both the Luft article in Foreign Affairs and the book by Morgenstren examine the tactic, as a tactic, explain why it was originally often used, why it was ineffective, and why it fell out of favor. It is certainly not a 'passing mention[s] in a list of tactics'. HupHollandHup (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is still nothing particularly notable about this tactic compared to the other tactics used by the Palestinian side of the conflict. I do not have access to the Luft article you mention, but the sentence refering to it again says it's listed among other tactics. Of all the tactics used, it's a not a special one. There is not even a single mention in Palestinian political violence article.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly wrong, as this tactic is very different from the suicide tactics discussed in the same sources (Luft, Morgenstern). There is extensive discussion there that explains why drive-by shootings and other non-suicide type guerrilla attacks were used at first, then replaced with suicide tactics. Thus we have 2 very reliable sources that discuss, in detail, the differences between drive-by shooting and other similar tactics from suicide tactics. You are now (implicitly) changing your argument, conceding that the sources I mentioned do indeed discuss this tactic in detail, but claim that since they do so in the context of other similar tactics, all those tactics are similar, making this one not much different from them. That it true, and I'm open to renaming this article Non-suicide Palestinian guerrilla tactics, or some other less awkward name that accurately describes the concept, and expanding the article scope accordingly. HupHollandHup (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HupHollandHup, your argument seems to be that other stuff exists, which is not a reason to keep an article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartse (talk • contribs)

Wrong on three counts. First, I'm not arguing to keep in the basis of "other stuff" exists, I am arguing to keep base don established notability - read my !vote below. Two, here I am responding to an argument to delete based on 'no similar articles exist", and showing that it is false. Three, as already written above, taken from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST: "In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia.” [3] HupHollandHup (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yet another in an endless series of POV-driven articles aimed at demonization of the Palestinian side in the Israeli-Palestinian civil war. This is not even a news story, which cloaks most of the articles of this ilk, but rather a handy-dandy coatrack. Blatant POV trojan horse. —Carrite, Sept. 29, 2010.
Delete - Rather comical POV pushing attempt here. Does anyone have a good explanation for how a Palestinian drive-by shooting is significantly different and notable beyond a Drive-by shooting? NickCT (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, i can give you several ways in which they differ: (1) Drive-by shootings typically do not have repercussions in the form of travel restrictions on the general population (2) Drive-by shootings, at least those types noted in the main article, are typically not random acts of violence designed to instill terror, but rather focused on specific targets (rival gang members, military targets, political opponents) (3) Drive-by shootings typically do not receive pubic praise from members of ruling parties of foreign nations as do these Palestinian shootings (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hezbollah-leader-praises-hamas-for-west-bank-shooting-attacks-1.312028). there are plenty more, but since you find the attempt to document an organized campaign to terrorize civilians 'comical', I doubt I will be able to convince you. HupHollandHup (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources have discussed the concept instead of individual incidents. This has been discussed on the talk page and it is poor form to ignore that. However, those sources do not give it much more than a line so it may not equal much. There are also sources that mention the impact in various years discussing various events (Increased security measures caused "the Islamic group’s most brazen challenge yet to moderate President Mahmoud Abbas" Most of the sources that have been presented so far are about individual waves or incidents so most of the significant coverage is only related to the subject. I am too on the fence with this one to feel comfortable !voting either way. There is precedent for lists in the topic (bombings in the I-P conflict and rocket attacks in the I-P conflict). Those might be workable as articles instead of lists. I don't know. This article is more than a list. It is probably little more than start class but it is more than a list of different events. One thing I think is important, the AM is presenting some fine sourcing and this is ongoing. It should also be pointed out that the bulletted list could grow too long and shift this away from being an actual article. If the coverage of individual incidents and the handful of lines discussing the subject in other articles can couple to meet the GNG then it should be kept. If that is not deemed asa proper usage of GNG then it should be deleted.Cptnono (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Quite egregious POV pushing here. --78.100.225.75 (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)— 78.100.225.75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge to drive by shooting article, expand it there. Kavas (talk) 10:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is already covered in that article. Smartse (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there are elements of this that could reasonably be merged over to the Drive-by shooting article, that would work - but I concur, there's a bit too much POV here for my taste. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this topic fails the GNG because there has not been significant coverage of the topic. As we have discussed on the talk page, and as Cptnono has summarised above, while there are obviously many sources which report that these have occurred, there are no sources which directly discuss the topic as a whole. The only sources which aren't reporting these shootings immediately after they have occurred (news) have only a tiny mention of drive by shootings. Many people have looked for better sources, but seeing the failure of these to appear I think that the article has to be deleted. Smartse (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage of this as a topic. The sources used either are news stories about a specific shooting or mention drive-by shootings in passing. There are no sources that give any significant coverage to this as its own topic. nableezy - 15:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only argument brought by the deletion advocates with any merit is the idea that the article's topic is not treated as a separate topic by reliable sources, so it fails GNG. At the time of the nomination, HupHollandHup had already convincingly shown on the talk page that this is not the case; he has continued to show this here, and to my mind the deletion advocates have not succeeded in refuting him. (It's noteworthy, by the way, that while arguing that there are no significant sources, they have apparently not made a good faith effort to look for significant sources.) What I'd like to add is that even if this weren't notable as a topic, it would still pass GNG, because many - if not most - of the individual drive-by shootings this article includes are notable events, and this article is a logical and useful way to collect and organize that myriad of individually notable events. Thus, the article would be similar to Suicide bombings in Iraq since 2003 (adduced by AMuseo), which is a non-list article whose title is not a real topic, but whose value is in its collection and organization of separate incidents. The other arguments put forward by the deletion advocates are basically variations of attributing a nefarious motive to the article's creator or playing the racism card. Besides being baseless and extremely rude, these arguments cannot even in theory constitute a good reason to delete the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HupHollandHup has shown no such thing, much less convincingly so. Each of the sources that he claims discuss this topic separately do not do so and he has been unable to quote what from those sources do save for one line from each. nableezy - 21:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"(It's noteworthy, by the way, that while arguing that there are no significant sources, they have apparently not made a good faith effort to look for significant sources.)" See Talk:Palestinian_drive-by_shooting#Notability.3F. I spent around an hour looking for suitable sources on google scholar and google news and found no significant sources. As we've discussed, the sources HupHollandHup noted on the talk page do not contain significant coverage - they contain single sentences about Palestinian drive by shootings. Smartse (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smartse, I apologize. You did note on the talk page that you looked for sources, and I missed that. Regarding coverage, I don't think the argument that the coverage is too brief to be significant was convincing, because the question is how the sources cover the topic, not how many lines they do it in. The sources show that this particular tactic in Palestinian political violence had a particular heyday, a particular tactical mindset behind them, and particular results in terms of Israeli West Bank road policies; but I'm repeating things that have already been said. In any case, for me the more important issue is my second argument, which is an independently sufficient reason to keep, and which remains unaddressed. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - firstly, I would recommend that users consider reading through the article talk page if the issues here are not clear to them. To summarize, the supporters of this article have been unable over the course of several days to come up with a single source that discusses in depth the topic of Palestinian drive-by shootings. The article as a consequence is virtually nothing more than a list of news stories reporting on individual drive-bys in an attempt to support the WP:OR presumption that "Palestinian drive-by shootings" is a notable topic. Gatoclass (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be deliberate propaganda. I first heard of drive-by shootings in reference to LA gangs, but an article about "LA drive-by shootings" would be pretty silly. 68.45.109.14 has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep per Jalapenos do exist and Holland directly related to Israeli checkpoint. --Shuki (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment I have added a number of sources and rearranged others to make the strategic and tactical use of drive-by shootings by the Palestinian Authority and the Hamas de-facto government of Gaza clear. This should answer the objections of the the several editors above who have argued for deletion on the grounds that they do not find the sources in the article sufficient. More to the point, an AFD is not about whether the present article is or is not the best possible article. AFD is queries whether the topic is notable. A google search on Palestinian drive-by shooting produces 1,140,000 results, with plentiful results on JSTOR, google scholar, and google books. Real Palestinians use drive-by shootings as a real political strategy to cause real deaths which have real political consequences. Editors commenting on an AFD have a responsibility to look at the scholarly and journalistic sources available, not simply the ones used in the article as they find, it. Certainly coming to an AFD and making false assertions about the nature of the sources available is not acceptable behavior. Anyone asserting that sources supporting the notability of this topic hass not made a thoughtful search for sources.AMuseo (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a number of sources and rearranged others to make the strategic and tactical use of drive-by shootings by the Palestinian Authority and the Hamas de-facto government of Gaza clear

If the "strategic and tactical use of drive-by shootings" was "clear", you wouldn't need to "rearrange" sources to prove the point. You would have sources which made the point clear themselves. This comment of yours just underlines the WP:SYNTH basis of the article. Gatoclass (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per brewcrewer --Mbz1 (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic example of WP:SYNTH lacking significant coverage. --Jmundo (talk) 13:30, 5 October 2010 (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.