Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bollocks (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.  So Why  06:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Bollocks
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The majority of this article is composed of Dictionary definitions - and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I recommend the majority of the definitions which are valid and referenced are ported to Wikictionary, those which are clearly taken from the urban dictionary can be discarded. Aspects of the article talk about the law of profanity, censorship cases and a sex pistols album. These sections could be merged with the relevant main articles. I suggest the page is maintained as a redirect to either Profanity or testicles, or maintained as a disambiguation page. Dysklyver 12:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per Ignore all rules. 10,979 page views in the last thirty days as of this post. A functional article of functional use for Wikipedia's readers. North America1000 12:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Um ok, but do we really need an article listing every way to use 'Bollocks' in a sentence? I realize we have articles on Fuck, Shit, Bullshit, Cunt, Twat, Dick, Faggot, Bitch, Bugger, Cocksucker, Motherfucker, Tranny, Prick, Bong, White nigger, Gook, Chink, Nigger, Sheep shagger, Wetback, Asshole etc, but there is no precedent here and most of these articles are little more than popular dictionary definitions borrowing material from all mentions of the word, I could literally write a article on any word with reasonable usage and it would be as good, so I suppose the question really is, why is WP:DICTDEF a policy?. Dysklyver  12:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. We could probably manage with a redirect of Bollocks to Testicle, with a hatnote at the latter stating that Bollocks redirects here, with a link to nonsense as the other usage. I'm not convinced an etymology, definitions of every term that includes the work 'Bollocks', and tangential stuff about the Sex Pistols album makes an encyclopedia article - it's wiktionary material and stuff that's covered elsewhere. It's all bollocks, but it is encyclopedic? --Michig (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Much of the article is rubbish (I was going to use the article title but an edit filter stopped me), being a collection of examples of the use of this word rather than any encyclopedic description. There might be some useful content in this paper, and I found this letter (the link only seems to work if you come from Google Scholar, for example here) interesting, but useless for our purposes. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I presume that IP's using the 'bollocks' word is prohibited by an anti-vandal measure (I note your comments on the talk page). My point really is that the main 'topic' which the word is used to describe is Testicle, and any other usage / lists of usage is running into being a dictionary definition. the encyclopaedic topic of profanity (usage of any word, including this word, in a derogatory sense) is covered at Profanity. so really I can't see anything that can be made out of this as a standalone article. Dysklyver  13:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that (your first sentence) seems to be the case. I'm perfectly happy to forgo the privilege of using "naughty words", even if they are perfectly justified by the context. I would say that this word, at least here in Britain, is far more often used to mean "nonsense" than "testicles", even though the latter is the original meaning, so I don't think that testicle would be a good redirect target. And the use of this word to mean "nonsense", again here in the UK, is pretty routine, and only very mildly profane: nothing like as bad as most of the other taboo words that you list above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:DICTDEF is a policy, and it should be followed. Hence my !vote. The nom also asked why is WP:DICTDEF a policy, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. I do see a clear justification for not splitting this article up into individual elements, as has been suggested. The article is relatively well structured, setting the scene for the origins and use of this word, both its negative and positive applications and connotations and, significantly, some quite important social and legal contexts in which that word has huge relevance. e.g. the Sex Pistols prosecution and acquittal for obscenity over Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols. To refer a reader from that article to a page primarily on the biology of the testicle would not be helpful, I feel. WP:DICTDEF includes the policy WP:WORDISSUBJECT, stating: "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. In these cases, the word or phrase in and of itself passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources... ...such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary...and include information on the social or historical significance of the term." This article does do that. The article also serves as a "lens" through which other topics are seen (see also Art Bollocks), and here again, this meets WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Mention of other articles in this nomination, whether in existence or not yet created are all WP:WAX. My one concern (though not relevant to this debate) is that the key reference to Wycliffe's 1382 bible is uncited, and this is all I can find so far, which doesn't quite tally. It would be a shame if that quoted use turned out to be Complete bollocks. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - the previous AfD was overwhelmingly Keep and contains plenty of solid arguments for keeping the page, which are just as convincing (to me, anyway) today. Pinkbeast (talk) 04:33, 10 October 2017 (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.