Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Píča (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Píča

Píča (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article uses original research and is not verifiable at all, it looks like some kind of joke created by a Czech citizen. Therefore it should be deleted. Koblizek (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. It must have been a miracle that this survived a prior nomination for deletion, it is totally unverifiable. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 22:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think this must be a hoax. I googled pica and of course got the real meaning (i.e., eating non-food substances...). Renee (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Sure, in English. It may mean something else in Czech. There is an article in Czech on the subject. A2Kafir (and...?) 00:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is supposed to be a Czech symbol, and the Czech Wikipedia has had an article about it at cs:Píča for two years now. That article appears to have multiple references, although the references are all in Czech so I can't look them up myself. Googling for the word is difficult because Google appears to disregard the diacritics and looks for "pica" (not just the eating disorder, but the typeface size and other meanings). I plan to request input on the Czech Wikipedians' message board to see if they can confirm whether this symbol is real. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I may have heard it before. It may be notable in Czech, but the lack of valid sources in English indicates to me that this article probably does not belong in the English-speaking WP, except perhaps as a best case merge to Czech profanities or somesuch. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I can confirm that this is real and it is an often source of vandalism in the Czech Republic (possibly on a level that you might have with phallic shapes in English-speaking nations). It is probably notable in the Czech Republic and the sources in the Czech Wikipedia article are fairly reliable so I'd be inclined to either keep the article or create one called Czech profanity and merge the content there. The DominatorTalkEdits 02:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Replace I can also confirm the term. The article at cs:Píča is much better; if we want to keep this article here in the English wiki we should replace the contents with an English translation of the Czech version. I honestly don't care if it's deleted here or not. Seeing it up for AfD did give me a good chuckle. Plvekamp (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge and rewrite. As a citizen of the CZE I confirm it is one of the most widespread profanities but in the half of the country it is written with short i. Still, the article is really bad and deceptive. The <|> sign mentioned can be found in virtually every country where I've been, it is not some Czech speciality. According to one documentary it was used as long ago as Before Christ in caves in Brazil. - Darwinek (talk) 08:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I know Darwinek and The Dominator by their work in WikiProject Czech Republic, and I'm satisfied that this is a real thing. The article is a valuable cross-cultural reference, and the information in it should remain. It's like the different meanings of hand gestures in different countries. It would be more valuable if it were pointed to by omnibus articles such as "World sexual symbology" or something. --Milkbreath (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • KeepYopie 12:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I'd like to remind everybody that this is not a vote and comments such as "keep" or "keep or merge" should be given little weight unless they are expanded upon. The DominatorTalkEdits 14:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The fact that there is a better referenced article on the Czech language Wikipedia suggests that this is both notable and capable of improvement. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I am a Czech citizen too and that's why I nominated this page for deletion in the first place. Yes - the word "píča" really exists but it's not the name for described symbol. This fact is not verifiable even in our country. The first sentence in Czech article says "píča is a vurgal term for female genital organs" while the English article is fully based on that unverifiable symbol.Koblizek (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment That's a good argument for correcting the article, not for deleting it. IMHO. Plvekamp (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Only if by correcting you actually mean writing completely new article. And even then it would still use original research and unverifiable information making it a good candidate for deletion.Koblizek (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Is the Czech article up for challenge/deletion? A2Kafir (and...?) 17:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, by correcting, I mean writing completely new article. The original Czech article at cs:Píča is not up for challenge/deletion, and is well-referenced. Having said all that, the subject is covered quite well over there, and I don't see much need for it here. Keep or delete, I don't really care. Your statement that it is "unverifiable" is contradicted by the presence of solid references in the Czech article, though. Plvekamp (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Could someone do a translation of the Czech article into English? A2Kafir (and...?) 18:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It is irrelevant if this article or a similar article exists in another Wikipedia. Each language has certain standards for inclusion, some more rigorous than others. The fact that this material is totally unverifiable, remains to be unverifiable, and that no one has come forward with reliable third party publications about the subject speaks much louder than a million people begging to keep. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 18:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not well-referenced - actually there is a [citation needed] tag on the second line and note that it wasn't me who put it there. Don't forget we are talking about the symbol, not just about the word. I repeat my statement that this article is unverifiable.Koblizek (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, that only means that line is uncited, and could be omitted. The rest of the article is verified by the references (granted, in Czech) quoted from the original here:
REJZEK, Jiří. Český etymologický slovník. [s.l.] : [s.n.]. ISBN 80-85927-85-3. - Czech etymological dictionary
Etymologie jednoho nepekneho slova [online]. 2006-10-13, [cit. 2008-01-19]. - Etymology of several (improper?) words
DOLEŽAL, A. (Ne)pikantní jazykověda. Praha : Grada Publishing, 1996. ISBN 80-7169-333-2. - (Impolite?) linguistics
UZEL, Radim. Etymologie vulgární nomenklatury genitálu [online]. Společnost pro plánování rodiny a sexuální výchovu, [cit. 2008-01-19]. - Etymology of vulgar nomenclature of genitalia
JK. piča [online]. Encyklopedie CoJoCo, 2000-09-05, rev. 2000-12-13, [cit. 2008-01-19]. - An online Czech encyclopedia entry
Rozbor uměleckého díla [online]. White Dog, 2006-09-29, [cit. 2008-01-19].
I'm tempted to add that the symbol could be verified by looking at a bathroom stall... I'm a little suspicious that this AfD is a veiled attempt at censorship. I'm not a native speaker, obviously, but I do understand a little Czech. Plvekamp (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Omitting that line from Czech article would mean omitting the whole English article (=deleting it) because it's based on that line. And what's your point with those references? All of them (some of them being just speculations) are ONLY about the word and its alleged origin, there's nothing about the symbol and the article I nominated for deletion is only about the symbol. None of those references is applicable here. Your sentence I'm tempted to add that the symbol could be verified by looking at a bathroom stall actually means that it can't be verified at all. This is definitely not an attempt at censorship, it's just an attempt to clean a mess someone made by publishing the article based on one unverifiable symbol.Koblizek (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:SOFIXIT. I already stated my belief that it would be better to clean the mess by translating the better article, and a native speaker like yourself would do that much better than I could. Or delete it. My only objection is to the statement that the entire article is unverifiable, where references exist. Plvekamp (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with this and that's another reason why I don't want to correct the English article and at the same time I have no problem with Czech article. Koblizek (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Per Plvekamp suggestion I'm adding another reason for deletion in addition to the above - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Koblizek (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

So far, I think that an article on Czech profanity might be best. the article kokot (slang) was recently deleted because of WP:DICDEF too. The DominatorTalkEdits 04:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:DICDEF only. I'm getting off the fence I was sitting on...  ;) Plvekamp (talk) 05:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: needs improving but it is interesting. Scolaire (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note that references added recently by JanSuchy have little credibility and show no connection between the word píča and the symbol. Koblizek (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep there seems to be adequate documentation for this. Weak keep only, because I can not actually see it myself & some of the people who can read the language have expressed some doubts. DGG (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge and rewrite. This word with slightly different spellings is among the most widespread profanities in at least several Slavic languages, but as far as I know it refers to female sexual organs, not a symbol of rhombus. --Eleassar my talk 18:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Comment I made a slight rewrite to indicate that it doesn't refer solely to the symbol but also to the actual word. The DominatorTalkEdits 20:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep confirmed as genuine by knowledgeable, trusted editors. Perhaps difficult to source in English, but as mentioned above, an important cross-cultural article. A more comprehensive one on the broader subject of Czech profanity would probably be preferable, but I'll take an imperfect article that exists over a perfect but wholly imaginary one. Ford MF (talk) 02:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


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.