Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spieprzaj dziadu! (2nd nomination)


 * 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. This was going to be an interesting discussion from the start! However, the main recommendations were to either merge it or to keep it. The consensus is just for keeping the article --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 19:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Spieprzaj dziadu!
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The original AFD has been voided because of EEML votestacking (see DRV) and relisted for further discussion. As this is a procedural nomination as the closer of the DRV, I offer no opinion. Spartaz Humbug! 04:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Lech Kaczynski. It is more encyclopedic to list notable phrases said by a politician in his bio article than to have an article for each phrase he uttered which got reported in the papers or was seized upon by his opponents. We do not have article for each of the many more notable phrases uttered by George Bush and derided by his opponents, for instance. Edison (talk) 04:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability is the key criteria surely, not the category of a thing. FYI, we have many articles on political phrases - see for example Category:Political catch phrases Malick78 (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable expression. As a second choice, merge per Edison. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In the first AFD you complained about the sources, Metropolitan :) Now it's notability you doubt?? Malick78 (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I complained about the sources in the first AfD, because at the time the article had no reliable sources, just two videos. You wouldn't have expected me to evaluate notability before any sources appeared, right? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough :) But don't the links in my comments below now sway you that it may be a notable phrase? :) Malick78 (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a difficult one to make a call on; it does seem to have coverage, but not knowing Polish (and translation tools I've used giving rather incoherent results) it's hard to say what, if any of it, would constitute a [WP:RS|Reliable Source]. The Polish page for this phrase has the same or less content as this does, so I would say that there's little chance that translating it more reliably will give any differing content here. Merge to Lech Kaczynski is my leaning, but it might help if someone who could better evaluate the inevitable Polish links that Google gives us weighed in on the reliability and/or independence of results; overall though, I can't say I would be opposed to deletion. Aeternitas827 (talk) 06:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, this is the most notable and widely-known quote from the Polish political scene of the last decade. Of 17 quotes by Kaczynski, it appears first in the Wiadomosci newspaper's list, and the paper describes it as "of cult status" ("Słowa o statusie dziś już kultowym"). As the WP article notes, it was even cited by Janusz Palikot, another MP, and thrown back at Kaczynski - an act for which Palikot was investigated by the public prosecutor. It is cited on TV, in film and in computer games. This phrase has its own history. That is surely self-evident. Malick78 (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And here's a Newsweek article about the phrase's ongoing life (seven years after it was said). How can the phrase not be noteworthy??? Malick78 (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And Gazeta Wyborcza's list of articles including the phrase.Malick78 (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And here's a google news page on the frequency of the phrase being mentioned in the press. Malick78 (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or at best merge to Lech Kaczynski. I voted for deletion last time. At that time the article's sources consisted of two broken dead links and a transcript to the conversation that is the subject of the article. And also, already by that time, this has become old news in Poland. So even by that time NOT NEWS already applied. And also at that time, the article was dangerously flirting with BLP violations. Since that time some more sources have been added - all of which basically show that at one point in time this was "news" in Poland. But Wikipedia is NOT NEWS. Also, links to a google search which show that the phrase has been mentioned in news in Poland in 2010 have been provided. But why is that? Probably because the subject of the article, the President of Poland, Lech Kaczynski, died in an airplane crash this year - and undoubtedly some newspapers recounted this anecdote when summarizing his life, after his death. But Wikipedia is still NOT NEWS. I note that, for example, even the much more famous line "I did not have sex with that woman" doesn't have an article (it redirects to the Lewinsky affair) on Wikipedia - and it shouldn't since Wikipedia is  NOT NEWS. Since the subject of the article died in a horrible accident this year, I guess BLP no longer applies. But there is still no point to this article and it should be deleted.radek (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - just to add, the creator of the article, Malick78, also appears to insist on keeping some completely irrelevant links in the "See Also" section . One link is to an "an ancient Slavic feast" and the other to a 19th century poem by Adam Mickiewicz. Why? These have nothing to do with the subject of the article at all, except the common use of the word "Dziady". But as anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of Polish will tell you the word "Dziady" does not even mean the same thing across these articles. In the poem and the feast "Dziady" means "Ancestors" and carries positive connotations. Sort of "wise old men". In the Kaczynski saying "Dziad" means "decrepit old man", "old coot" etc. and carries decisively negative connotations. This basically appears to be a case of "article padding" since there really isn't much to write about otherwise.radek (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note to other users: Radek aka Radeksz was a member of the Eastern European Mailing List which coordinated efforts offline to outvote other editors. His vote in this ADF last time was one of the reasons the AFD was annulled. He was banned last December from involvement in any Eastern European articles or linked pages but that was rescinded in June because he promised to be good. From his above comments he seems to have returned to one of the scenes of his crimes, and I shall be reporting him for it.
 * As for his points, Kaczynski is dead so BLP has nothing to do with this. That's just "comment padding" I presume :) I reinstated the Dziad links because it's the same word as in the phrase and shows the transformation of it over time! That's surely of interest to readers. The fact that a member of the EEML had deleted the section rang an alarm bell of course... Malick78 (talk) 09:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, I was on the mailing list. But I never "committed a crime" here, nor was I canvassed in any way, last time or this time for my vote. It's just simply an article that deserves to be deleted. I'm not sure what you're going to report me for. Expressing my opinion? And the reason I left that comment on your talk is because you were making personal attacks against me on other people's talk pages, not to mention being rude on my own page as well.
 * The section should be deleted (actually the whole article should be deleted or merged) because it has nothing to do with the article. I note that the current featured article on the main page Hurricane Bob (1985) does not have a See Also link to Bob or Robert the Bruce or Bobby Kennedy or anything else irrelevant. Same thing. Just like NOT NEWS applies to the article as a whole, NOT A DICTIONARY (particularly, not a Polish dictionary) applies to this section.radek (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And btw, last time around, the first person to vote delete was current member of ArbCom User:Hersfold. At any rate, any closing admin is of course free to ignore my vote and opinion here. But the article's still delete worthy.radek (talk) 10:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * One more observations: to the extent that the article is based on some news sources, there are chunks of the article text which are direct (google?) translation of the original - i.e. possible COPYVIOS. For example, the text "The phrase has been repeated in various television programmes, notably the sitcom Świat według Kiepskich ("The World According to the Kiepskis") and cult cartoon Włatcy móch.[2] It is used in the Polish versions of the computer game The Witcher and also appears in a milder form ("Zjeżdżaj, dziadu" - "Get lost, old man") in the translations for the animated films Astérix at the Olympic Games, Open Season and The Simpsons Movie." is a very very close, almost word for word translation of the text "Pojawiło się też w jednym odcinku serialu "Włatcy móch" oraz w kilku odcinkach serialu "Świat według Kiepskich", a także w polskiej wersji gry komputerowej "Wiedźmin". Przedostało się nawet (w złagodzonej formie "Zjeżdżaj, dziadu") do polskich wersji filmów animowanych "Sezon na misia" i "Simpsonowie: Wersja kinowa". Słowa te można było także usłyszeć w polskiej wersji filmu "Asterix na Olimpiadzie". " - the main difference is just the ordering of the sentences but they're pretty much verbatim, even up to the parentheses for the "milder form".radek (talk) 10:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Wiadomosci article you mention lifted two sentences from the Polish version of WP :) :) :) :) This version of the page from Jan 2008 has "Pojawiło się też w jednym odcinku serialu "Włatcy móch"[7] oraz w kilku odcinkach serialu "Świat według Kiepskich". Przedostało się nawet (w złagodzonej formie Zjeżdżaj, dziadu) do polskich wersji filmów animowanych Sezon na misia i Simpsonowie: wersja kinowa." The Wiadomosci article's last sentence mentions the date 23 February 2008 and would seem to therefore postdate the WP article. What this shows is a) that Wiadomosci copied two sentences (even admitting the use of WP here Radeksz), b) that Wiadomosci rates the Polish WP article highly and c) that Wiadomosci confirmed the accuracy of the WP article. :) Malick78 (talk) 11:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it does look like the source in this instance copied Polish Wikipedia so this isn't a copyvio(though there are other passages that are also close copies of sources); but what this shows is that Wiadomosci is not a reliable source and shouldn't be used - we don't use Polish wikipedia as a source. and this doesn't show at all that "Wiadomosci confirmed the accuracy of the WP article" or anything of the kind.radek (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it shows that your research was incomplete. Wiadomosci, aka Wirtualna Polska, is a respected news outlet and the sixth most popular webportal in Poland. You and I are not so respected or popular. Let's bear that in mind and give them some credit :) As to them using WP, I guess that's something to do with their mother company's partnership agreement with Wikimedia. Malick78 (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep or (if it can be done unobtrusively) merge. Sources given by Malick now seem to confirm that the phrase is notable in itself.--Kotniski (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, seriously wikipedia is not a tabloid, it's a encyclopedia for crying out loud. At most the Spieprzaj dziadu incident deserves a line or two in the Kaczynski article. Dr. Loosmark  11:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's no surprise Radeksz's chesspal and best buddy has appeared here, I suppose. Malick78 (talk) 11:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume he came here because of the automatic notification at Poland-related articles for deletion, as I did. Don't get paranoid.--Kotniski (talk) 11:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * :) Sorry, once bitten... Malick78 (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Kotniski is correct. Malick78 may I suggest you stop commentating on everybody who votes for delete or merge? We know your position, please let other express theirs in peace as well. Dr. Loosmark  12:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confused. I've only commented on you and Radeksz. Others I've responded to in the hope of producing constructive dialogue, something which is generally seen as useful. Malick78 (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So far you have commented and responded to everybody who didn't vote the same way as you did. Just imagine if everybody would behave like you, this page would be a total chaos. Dr. Loosmark  12:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologise for following "When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy". Clearly my fault. Malick78 (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Evaluating the Polish is tricky, but given the coverage (esp. the 2009 Newsweek coverage) it certainly seems to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Kotniski and Hobit. Varsovian (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Lech Kaczyński. Yes, it's been a fairly popular political phrase among the late president's opponents, but I don't think it's notable enough on its own merit. See how You forgot Poland has been merged into Polish involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq for a similar case. — Kpalion(talk) 10:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, "You forgot Poland" was not the most famous quotation of Bush's time in office. Nor was it used in political ads by the opposition party, nor did it appear on t-shirts or coins, and nor did it appear in films. There are many phrases which have disappeared after brief notoriety, but "Spieprzaj dziadu" doesn't seem to be one of them. Malick78 (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, it didn't appear on T-shirts? — Kpalion(talk) 19:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Here's a book from a major academic publisher saying that this phrase has come to exemplify lack of respect of politicians for their electors. This article from Gazeta Wyborcza in 2009 (i.e. years after the original incident and before Lech Kaczyński's death) says that public prosecutors have consulted linguists from many higher education establishments about the meaning of the phrase, and this one, headlined 'Events that changed the city: "Spieprzaj, dziadu"' chooses to pick out the phrase in its headline for an article about the most influential events in Warsaw over the course of 20 years. I've only scratched the surface of the sources available online, but this is clearly enough to demonstrate notability. For the avoidance of doubt I'll add that I'm fluent in Polish, so I'm not relying on machine translations for my assessment. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The book from the major academic publisher you link to "Słownik polszczyzny politycznej po roku 1989" is a "Dictionary of Polish political phrases since 1989"; per Wikipedia is not a dictionary it undoubtedly contains entries on many phrases which shouldn't have Wikipedia articles.radek (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Radeksz, please keep up. The fact that a dictionary mentions a phrase doesn't mean that that phrase's article in WP is acting like a dictionary :) Malick78 (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Malick, will you please quit it with the personal attacks and the rude condescension, like "please keep up"? You are obviously very emotionally invested in this article, but that is no excuse for continually attacking everyone who disagrees with you.
 * So, keeping up, the point obviously is that a fact that a dictionary of political phrases mentions the phrase is no indication of notability.radek (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that some of Malick's interjections are unhelpful, but what about the other sources that I mentioned? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still thinking and considering them. Atm I think they are sufficient to support a merge to Lech Kaczynski, where they could be used, but I'm not yet convinced they're enough to justify a stand alone article. Let me think a bit more about it.radek (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Foreign language articles are always a headache when it comes to sourcing, but per Phil Bridger's good work and in order to avoid WP:Systemic bias I'm on the keep side. A merge is inappropriate as placing it in the Lech Kaczynski article would bring undue weight to it within that article. Bigger digger (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2010 (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.