Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italian profanity


 * 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. Sr13 02:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Italian profanity

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, let alone a dictionary of obscenities, swear words, or blasphemy. Completely unsourced, unverified, possibly original research, and totally unencyclopedic. Parent article List of profanities is gone. &mdash; JackLumber /tɔk/ 22:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: 1) the fact it is currently unsourced does not mean it cannot be sourced; 2) I am Italian and everything in there is the truth, so it's fully verifiable. 3) Italian language is not "original research". 4) It is as encyclopedic as a relevant part of a popular spoken language. If you don't like because it's full of obscenities, you should also request deletion for pussy, cunt, dick and so on. --Angelo 22:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Find the sources, then. 2) No man, that's not the way it works. Wikipedia doesn't work on a take-my-word-for-it basis. 3) Who said anything about the Italian language? THIS article doesn't cite any references, so it is possibly original research. 4) Relevant? How relevant? Again, you don't cite any sources. Please read WP:WINAD; "Wikipedia is not a ... slang and idiom guide. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a hacker or a Cockney chimney-sweep; we're writing an encyclopedia." &mdash; JackLumber /tɔk/ 22:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There are books and publications (all in Italian of course) regarding the "Italian profanities" issue. This is not just a idiom guide, the article is full of examples but there is also very encyclopedic content in it, such as linguistical and historical origins of these words, regional distribution (Italian is a heterogeneous language, maybe you don't know this) and a fine paragraph about "Profanity as blasphemy". It needs to be cleaned up and sourced, not to be deleted. --Angelo 22:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * L'italiano e' una lingua eterogenea. Lo so e lo capisco. Maybe this article is not _just_ an idiom guide, but it IS an idiom guide, and it blatantly violates WP:WINAD. In addition, blasphemy doesn't belong in an encyclopedia and sure it ain't "fine." &mdash; JackLumber /tɔk/ 22:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please calm down. If the only actual reason you'd like to see that article deleted, is because you're offended by the "blasphemy", then remember that Wikipedia is not censored, there's conservapedia for that. PS. You might benefit from studying folklore.--BMF81 22:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Too bad your argument is biased, witness your blasphemous userpage. This is not myspace; objectionable content may exist only if useful, it cannot exist for the sake of itself. &mdash; JackLumber /tɔk/ 22:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. I'm Italian too, and totally agree with the above comments by Angelo.romano.--BMF81 22:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Reliable_sources. Evilclown93 22:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, where are these reliable sources? &mdash; JackLumber /tɔk/ 22:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The published book is a reliable source, and so is the BBC article. Evilclown93 23:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * They only cover a couple sentences, while the article is 11,000+ bytes long. &mdash; JackLumber /tɔk/ 23:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, but it proves it's not a hoax, and like other Keep-sayers pointed out, it is notable enough. Also, if every article was judged like that, we'd have 10000-strong backlogs at AfD every day. Evilclown93 01:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Very interesting, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary, specifically "...a slang, jargon, or usage guide." Mannaggia. (I hope I'm using that right.) Clarityfiend 23:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Still, we have many article on words, as Truthiness, Nigger (offensive yet highly notable) and Thou, which is a featured article.--BMF81 23:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but in all truthiness, the words thou hath mentioned are placed in context at some length, whereas this just gives definitions. Clarityfiend 05:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 01:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Fails WP:WINAD and is insufficiently sourced to alleviate OR concerns, but could be improved on both counts if reliable independent sources (preferably editorial, rather than an Italian dictionary, for example) can be applied and the article is extensively rewritten in line with the other cited articles. I would urge those who wish to keep it to make these improvements.  Adrian  M. H.  15:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep there is a Latin profanity and Spanish profanity. The Spanish one fail deletion in 2005. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, articles about other languange's profanity aren't only interesting, they're also educational. --Candy-Panda 01:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as I'm reasonably sure there is an Italy which has its own language and thus its own profanity. Frankly, if they didn't have it, I'd support an article on that merit.  The various idioms and profanities of a given language/culture are certainly encyclopedic, as they are frequently the subject of scholarly study and even commentary in the news.  Concerns about references are valid, but not for deletion, but rather cleanup. FrozenPurpleCube 03:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per most of the above; Italian profanity is no less encyclopedic than Spanish profanity. Carlossuarez46 20:59, 11 June 2007 (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.