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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roof knocking[edit]

Roof knocking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is a non-notable term used only by one side of the conflict. It should be deleted or merged and redirected into 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Cerejota (talk) 06:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am undecided on inclusion notability (there are RS who mention this, but the V is thin)... But notable enough for its own article? Convince us. This is threading on WP:POVFORK grounds, but I am not sure so I am soliciting opinions. --Cerejota (talk) 07:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*'Delete,'Redirect. This is a minor new thing that has been a part of 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. If it, the term and the practice, does not gain some usage outside of that it shouldn't merit its own article. Nableezy (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC) As it is currently taking on a bigger subject than originally, I change to keep as redirect to Warnings to civilians before air strikes Nableezy (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as redirect to Warnings to civilians before air strikes and expand article in a reasonable amount of time. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A couple of sentences don't clearly define the term. The articles are about the strikes not about the term.--Jmundo (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please no personal attacks and assume good faith--Jmundo (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the concept is not new, why all the secondary sources are from 2009? Where are the books and academics papers about this neologism?--Jmundo (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Looks like a lot of those are the references in the article. My position still stands. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 00:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All the secondary sources provided are from January, 2009. Again, neologism are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities". --Jmundo (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the notable military tactic not about the word. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should be renamed, expanded and rewritten to reflect this. As it is, this is a WP:COATRACK/WP:POVFORK that belongs in 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict as a minor par tof it. You are given undue weight importance otherwise: does wikipedia really want this? --Cerejota (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's about the specific Israeli military operation. As for the other wikilinks and your parting question, I really have no idea what you're trying to say. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we wnat every little term that anyone uses to refer to something in an given event to have its own article, simply because it can be sourced, as opposed to including it in the parent article? This seems like a way to split a legitimate editing dispute into two articles for POV reasons. Its done all the time, and the community generally frowns upon it and deletes, althought things like New antisemitism (should go into Antisemitism in amuch more abriged form) and Israel and the apartheid analogy (should go into some humanrights article also abriged) have flaunted it as real aberrations. Its all about all sides of the I-P conflict thinking they are the center of the universe instead of thinking about creating a quality encyclopedia.--Cerejota (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite any military history book that talks about this notable tactic?--Jmundo (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I heard that Americans used it when bombing British subjects during the Revolutionary War. Kidding. Point is, being historic is not prerequisite to notability. See, for example, 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, an article about something that is not mentioned in any military history books. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you in that. What I do not agree with is that the term as used in this conflict warrants its own article. BTW, Jmundo, dear friend, WP:NEO doesn't apply here: neo-logism are new words not novel uses of existing words. --Cerejota (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How considerate of them. If this tradition has been happening for years, where are the sources? (WP:RELIABLE). --Jmundo (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly Tundrabuggy, while I commend the IDF for doing something rather than nothing, your views on this simply don't fit well with the closest thing we have to objective reality, namely the pronoucements of many international bodies, human rights groups, journalists in the various battlefields over the years and so forth whenever these conlicts occur. They're usually highly critical of the steps the IDF take to avoid civilian casualities (which after all they are legally obliged to take). I'm not taking sides here, I'm just saying that your views seem questionable given the amount of evidence to the contrary. If we're going to talk about opportunities to educate people with this article as you say then we better get it right. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not only does this practice exist, the Palestinians have been taking advantage of it for some time, as per this article from 2006 [12]. Pay particular attention to the Palestinian quote regarding the "Zionist policy":
  • "Palestinians use 'human ring' to protect senior official: Hundreds of Palestinians gather at house of wanted man after IDF warned residents to distance themselves from building because it is about to be bombed. 'We came to prove that the Zionist policy can be beat,' said civilians, who stayed on site until wanted man escaped." Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, someone said that the only mentions of this tactic are from 2009. I found reference(listed in the article that is from a 2006 article in the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jul/28/israel WacoJacko (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one here is speaking or has spoken about the tactic being new, its the name that is new. I find it interesting that the "topic" is being changed but not the name. --Cerejota (talk) 05:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is new, it would still be notable based on all of the sources.WacoJacko (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is only notable in relation to the event in which it has been coined, it certainly deserves a spot in the main article, but as its own? Nableezy (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're Wikipedians - that is simply never true. ;-) Graymornings(talk) 19:57, 13 January 2009 (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.
More