Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piss be upon him


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. While articles on attack phrases can be written in principal and are not necessarily subject to CSD G10, they need to be grounded on reliable and neutral sources about it, and it is more than clear from below discussion that this is not the case here. --Tikiwont

Piss be upon him

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable slur. P4k (talk) 06:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I probably should have just put db-attack on this, actually.P4k (talk) 06:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there any more reason for this to be deleted than Axis of medieval. There are ten times as many google hits for "piss be upon him" as "axis of medieval"? -- Q Chris (talk) 07:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:WAX. We are discussing the merits of this article, not another. Mstuczynski (talk) 07:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * True, though I think we should be careful not to give the impression that it is OK to document negative slogans against the US but not against Islam. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * While I agree with your point, I do not think this is the forum. Mstuczynski (talk) 08:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete I wish I could use a speedy delete here, but this might be a better route. I will instead call attention to wp:not as I do not see this as capable of becoming more than a dicdef. Mstuczynski (talk) 07:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete The article is obviously one sided and non-encyclopaedic. On the other hand if it were expanded to include references to use, similar phrases used against other religions, rebuttals of accusations against Muhammad, etc. then I would say keep. I think it is important to show that we are not deleting it because it is a taboo subject, but because it is one sided and of low quality. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOT.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 08:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, and next time don't use an edit summary that says "Look at the refs" when your refs are urbandictionary, a google search, and a blog. (...who walked into a bar, and the bartender said ...) --Dhartung | Talk 08:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NEO, no reliable sources about the term, as opposed to ones which just happen to use it. In fact, not even any reliable sources which happen to use it - just a blog post, Urban Dictionary, and a Google search which leads mostly to forums. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 08:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per attack, given lack of notability. --Dweller (talk) 13:24, 13 March 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.