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. For one thing, the first half at least is a direct copy from here. Also, a main thrust of the article is contained in this assertion: "The Hague Conventions and the Geneva Conventions do not specifically define the terminology of "the occupying power," and many researchers are confused about this aspect. In fact the conqueror is the occupying power." But is this true? Is the conqueror "in fact" the occupying power? Or is this just something the author of the article (lifting from the document at the above link) are asserting? No proof is offered that this is codified in the rules of war (in fact, the opposite is stated ("The... Conventions do not specifically define the terminology..."). I have to accept the arguments of the commentors that this a neologism and (partly) an opinion piece. Herostratus 16:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proxy occupation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable, nothing that wouldn't be covered under military occupation, poorly sourced. Ngchen 04:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Poorly sourced means it needs to be sourced, not that it should be deleted. Notability doesn't seem to be an issue here; it is referencing an actual type of military occupation, and remember: Wiki is not paper. After reading the article myself, I can agree that that what it is trying to describe it fails spectarularly at. Nevertheless, it is in fact describing an actual condition specified by current laws of war, and deserves space in the wikipedia. It should definitely be heavily rewritten, both for ease of understanding and more sources. But it should not be deleted. — Eric Herboso 21:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-existent, neologism. Pavel Vozenilek 08:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect, doesn't seem to be used much, no Google Books or Google Scholar hits to speak of, poorly cited seems to be due mostly to rare usage. Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:30, 3 April 2007 (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.