Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pish

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.

YE'S ARE AW REEKIN' AE PISH YA WIKIBAWBAGS!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.235.7 (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep rewritten encyclopaedic article. Thanks/wangi 16:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Pish

Pish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is a Scottish slang variation of "piss". Violates WP:NOT#DICT, and is a disambiguation page with 2 suggested meanings, the former of which is probably not verifiable (I am Scottish and have never heard it refer to a bird call), and the other is a dicdef. Already exists in Wiktionary. Unreferenced. Delete.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - as per nom.--Edtropolis 16:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki 17:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep in light of the substantial changes made. It is no longer a disamb page, and it is supported by WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 02:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Also per CSD G6, infra, as the disamb page only directs to a single article, and only IF you count piss as one of the articles. --Evb-wiki 21:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Eh, G6 doesn't cover it at all. I've shown with a minute of investigation that the 2nd use on the page is indeed valid (oh, and I'm Scottish too if that matters) and nobody has implied that it's not encyclopaedic... It might not be, but G6 certainly isn't a go here. Thanks/wangi 21:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD G6 (disamb page linking to a single article, if we suppose its linking to piss can be counted as one). — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Huji (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy keep with regard to the changes made to the article since my last comment.huji—TALK 05:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment' please don't accept ignorance as an argument. "Pish" is indeed used in "bird circles" as a quick search would illustrate: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=pish+bird+call. Now, if it's encyclopaedic or not is another matter. Any delete closure should infact create a redirect to piss. Thanks/wangi 20:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Please provide a WP:RS listing "pish" as being the sound of a bird call.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'll defer to the more knowledgeable Sabine's Sunbird below. Anyway my main concern is that we're wanting to delete an article because of systematic bias. From a quick read of the three sources quoted below I don't think it's unreasonable to say an encyclopaedic article could be created. /wangi 22:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, with a dab at the top to piss. Etymologically pish for attracting birds isn't Scots, it's just the name used by birders for the sound you make (Sort of a Psshhhhp pssshhhp psshhhp.) It sounds like the alarm call of a wren or something and causes skulking birds to come and try and see what the matter is (in theory anyway, I've never been sure how well it works). It's genuine, someone has managed to write a whole book on the subject [1] as well as some journal articles [2] [3].... Needs expansion, obviously, and the nice people at WP:BIRD might be able to help (I'll see what I can do). Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've been bold and created a cited article stub for the subject, with a dab to urine at the top. Arguably it might be better to move this page to Pishing (as the activity is perhaps better known), and from there have a dab to urine and phishing. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep For the reasons cited by Sabine's Sunbird. It is clear, at least to me, from the content of the article that the "pish" that it refers to is a birding term, and completely unrelated to any Scottish slang. A move to "pishing" would be a good idea, however, as it would (hopefully) eliminate or reduce confusion for users searching for the slang term (which is in wiktionary, and not wikipedia). Jude 01:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep now. I didn't think the other meaning of the term had that much significance... didn't know about that at all.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. After the rewrite, there are no longer any grounds for deletion. - Pharaonic 11:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The author had not been given time to complete the article before it was nominated for deletion. It is now complete Jack1956 14:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Since the article was "created" in June 2006, I believe the "author" had plenty of time. Nomination of what the article had become was proper. After nomination, the article was transformed to a keepable article. A perfect usage of the process. --Evb-wiki 15:18, 17 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.