Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roof knocking

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 | 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]

• Keep. It surely is notable. It's a newsworthy military procedure. The fact that it's only used by one side of the military conflict surely isn't a basis for deletion. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:04, 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. I have read my fair share of articles and never encountered the word. Do a search on it, does it pull up a variety of sources? No, Wikipedia's purpose isn't to make things notable. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 07:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• — 68.123.141.153 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Weak keep. The IDF has been doing this for a while now. [1] However, only recently have I read it called "roof knocking" and it only turns up 13 hits on Google News. [2] JCDenton2052 (talk) 07:50, 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]

• Delete, if we are going to keep changing back and forth in the middle of this discussion what the article is called, I change my vote back to Delete. Nobody has yet given an example where this term was used outside of its current context. This could be a section of an article on warning civilians of srikes, but as its own article this is non-notable. Nableezy (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah that's kind of were I am was going... I have no doubt the term is notable, but I am not convinced it is notable enough for its own article. Thats why I suggested a merge/redirect as a possible outcome, even if my first instinct was delete. For example "Black Saturday Massacre" is how Hamas officially described the first air strikes, but it doesn't have a page of its own, because its not worth it. The exact same content would go into the main article without problem. --Cerejota (talk) 09:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • One event is not analogous to type of military procedure. This procedure was also used by the IDF in prior conflicts [3].--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What was it named then?--Cerejota (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I would like to point out that the 100-odd ghits in Google News is an underestimation of the term's notability. As this term originates in Israel, its main coverage would be in Israel and in Hebrew language news sources. Surely, nobody is arguing that a term notable in another country does not satisfy WP:N because it does not come up with a few hundred english language ghits?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many of those sources refer to the term outside of its present context? Nableezy (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know Hebrew. I can't answer that with any certainty. But surely I'm not going out on a limb if I suggest that there are far more Hebrew language news sources that give coverage to a military procedure that originated in Israel. Do you understand Hebrew?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No I don't just asked because you said its main coverage was in Israel. Im sure somebody who does know Hebrew will be along though to answer that :) Nableezy (talk) 08:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Brecrewer, you miss the point: we all believe the term to be notable, just not notable enough for its own article? You follow?--Cerejota (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you agree that the term is notable, but think it should be merged into another article I suggest that you withdraw your nom and speedy close this discussion. This is a forum for articles for deletion. Merge discussion belong at the articles talk pages. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I dont think it is notable outside of the current usage. Nableezy (talk) 09:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • What happened? I thought you agreed to wait for feedback from someone who understands Hebrew? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 10:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh I am still open to persuasion, but until somebody can show something that references this phrase, not necessarily in English, to something before this conflict I currently think it is not notable. Nableezy (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This practice has been used for years in many different conflicts Israel has been involved in so it doesn't make sense to redirect it to 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. --PiMaster3 ^talk 08:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah the practice exists, and is mentioned in other articles. This name, however, was given now, and this article is about this practice as it relates to this conflict, not the general practice. If we can source information and find a notable name for this phenomenon, then we can make an article about that. But your comment is not adressing the point of this AfD. --Cerejota (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, his comment was right on point. He maintains that this type of military operation has been around for a long time and is thus notable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pointless to have such a small article, better to merge it into the larger article.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please see Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:Stub for Wikipedia's policy regarding article size. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Are you sure that is what the term means ? I thought it was when non-lethal-ish missiles were used to disperse people from building prior to an attack. Brewcrewer, will you disambig to slaughter prep, or massacre logistics if those terms come up in a few hundred Arabic media sources ? Just curious. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 08:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I remember from my textbook in 6th grade that the Americans use this technique before they staarted bombing Tokyo, but my school changed textbooks, so I can't cite that :( Leujohn ^(talk) 09:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above: you are not addressing the article's content. This article is not Warnings to civilians before air strikes, it is about the naming of this practice by the IDF and its opinion that this practice means that they can legally bomb civilian areas. --Cerejota (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cerejota, the article says nothing about the legality of bombing civilians, that is something you have brought into the conversation.WacoJacko (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's wrong. The article is about a type of military procedure. If you think the article should be renamed, bring it up at the articles talk page. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the article is certainly not in good shape, even at its current size, but this is no reason to delete. The fact that it was created as a result of the recent conflict is not a reason to delete either, it just means that someone needs to include more information on how this practice was used in the past. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed it up a little, and renamed it to Warnings to civilians before air strikes, as clearly the term Roof knocking was not known before the present conflict in Gaza. If we can fix it to globalize beyond the examples from Israel, I am sure we can keep.--Cerejota (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I live in Israel and listen to the news at least four times a day, read the newspapers, and know pretty much what is going on. While it is true that the Israeli military issues telephoned warnings to inhabitants to evacuate, this hardly rates an article in the Wikipedia. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but expand to include other conflicts. WWII is a good start. If we can find reliable sources for other instances in which civilians were warned before air strikes, this warrants inclusion, but leaving the article as it is isn't an option. Graymornings_(talk) 11:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC) I made this comment after the article was renamed to Warnings to civilians before air strikes. Now the change seems to have been reverted, so I support deletion unless the article is renamed and broadened to other civilian air-strike warnings. Graymornings_(talk) 18:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - does it make a difference that, according to the Ha'aretz article, this practice is code-named "roof-knocking" by the IDF? Is this a kind of official language? Or is the author of the article just using "code-named" because it sounds cool? And, on a related note, do all such highly specific military actions merit pages (e.g., surgical strike) or no? Jlg4104 (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: The tactic/method or whatever you call it, is notable enough I think (isn't it notable when you get a standard warning that your house is going to blown up?) and should be covered. I think it should be kept if it can be expanded. Chamal ^talk 12:15, 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]

• • It appears the change of purpose and content to Warnings to civilians before air strikes is not consensus and all changes that de-specify this as a general article on the topic to an specific one for a term used only by the IDF and only recently. Hence, I restore delete or redirect to 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. Should the consensus move towards the generic topic, closing editor/admin can consider me as keep. I apologize for the confusion, but I really thought a consensus solution had emerged.--Cerejota (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict: unless anyone can provide evidence that this practice (and the term 'roof knocking') have been used before recent years, this seems like an example of recentism and should be merged back into the main conflict article. I'm not convinced lasting notability has been established here. Terraxos (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-- Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate....We must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. This article is a model example of this policy.--Jmundo (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you bother reading the article before !voting? The sources within the article clearly define the term. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:39, 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]

• Delete under avoid neologisms, under Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and under recentism. There are no sources that talk about this term as a new term. Furthermore, this article plays into Israeli claims that it is somehow protecting innocents in its air raids. Such propaganda--even if it is true that the IDF is dropping leaflets (on the roofs of people cowering in their basements) and/or making phone calls (into a non-functional cell phone network)--is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Propaganda comes in three flavors, white, grey, and black. We cannot be sure which kind this is, so it might well fail WP:V as well. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Notable propaganda is notable. Also, your hatred for Israel does not belong on this talk page. See WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please no personal attacks and assume good faith--Jmundo (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of every code name used by every military, and not a directory of neologisms. Edison (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This has nothing to do with directories. Lucian Sunday (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and keep- its a valid concept that's hardly new. More sourcing and broadening the focus to a more global one would be extremely helpful however. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:06, 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]

• Keep - It's a very interesting piece that has no logical resting place in a single other article. Various other military strategies are documented, and this particular article is attributed as much as any other. -SJG 81.98.113.58 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC). — 81.98.113.58 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Strong keep. Military tactics are notable enough for inclusion, and this one has received enough reliable, NPOV, third party coverage: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 00:25, 10 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]

• Strong KeepThis is not specific at all to the 2008-2009 conflict. Israel has been doing this for years. It has only come to more common knowledge since this latest confrontation. It's a Jewish tradition to be concerned about hurting civilians. Even the Jewish underground in '46, the famous episode of "Jewish terrorism" ie the bombing of the King David Hotel, the "terrorists" called the hotel first. The term may be relatively new, but it is something done by Israelis since before there was an Israel. They did the same thing in the Hezbollah conflict. The recent conflict is a good opportunity to educate people on this excellent practice, rather than trying to delete it. Perhaps the Palestinians can take a page from Israel and phone before firing. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:08, 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]

• Strong Keep This is an interesting and informative article. What is the use of Wikipedia if we turn it into another Encarta? The huge diversity of articles is what makes Wikipedia wonderfull...articles like this!WacoJacko (talk) 05:03, 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]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Ryan4314 (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It's well referenced, seems the term has been around a while. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notable and quite interesting.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 04:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep an important feature of current IDF tactics, and certainly covered by enough reliable sources (even if they don't use the exact name 'roof knocking', they describe what this article covers) to become a decent quality article with time. Cynical (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep its a useful and developing term. Superpie (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question:How real and notable in this "strategy", when the death toll is now 800 and 90 percent of the cellphone network is down? I don't think we need an article about this inconsequential practice. --J.Mundo (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer: Notability is determined by coverage in reliable sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect somewhere. This term is poorly defined—is it shooting at the corners of roofs only, or does it include the much older practice of dropping leaflets? It should be redirected to 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict or somewhere more general. 66.57.190.166 (talk) 07:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've read everything here, it is not a definition, it is about a notable military tactic (which can be seen with several NPOV third pary coverage). Cannot be merged into 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict since the IDF has been doing this for many years. Epson291 (talk) 10:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Interesting article. That it is used by only one side of the conflict is no reason at all to delete it. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 16:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Let's not discuss this while emotions are running high; surely people have better things to do right now? cojoco (talk) 12:29, 13 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.