Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dicknail

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 of the debate was keep, nominator has voted keep and there have been no other delete votes. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 00:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dicknail

Not notable, and name is obscene. george 19:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep obscenity is not grounds for deletion (Wikipedia is not censored). Hole is a clearly notable band, so I support keeping their sophomore single listed. Gwernol 19:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Reluctant keep this is an album that was released by the notable band Hole (band), and is thus notable. Regarding the obscene name, Wikipedia is not censored for minors, so it is not relevant IMHO. Where ^(talk) 19:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Nobody has ever heard of Hole. Hole is a pit in the ground. There is no point in making each album waste an article name. List the album's on the Hole page so that the 3 people in the world who care about it can read it there. george 19:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Ummm...George, have you read WP:POINT? Hole (band) is notable, whether you like them or not, and whether everyone "has ever heard" of them or not. Two platinum albums = notability. -- Scientizzle 19:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Its dreck such as this that makes Wikipedia a laughing stock.george 19:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep There's plenty of precedent here: a released single from a notable band. If any relevant data exists on the success of the single it should be added. -- Scientizzle 19:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Its not an article, its a factoid. We should knock these articles off because people need to write articles. Just throwing up a sentence ties up an article title and wastes space on the server and the topic is so obscure that no more than 2 or 3 people in the world would ever care about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Georgeccampbell (talk • contribs) .
• Speedy Keep per WP:BAND and discussion. BoojiBoy 19:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• If we have to keep it, then it should be moved to Dicknail (album Hole) or something so that this MINOR factoid doesn't squat on the article name for Dicknail. george 20:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Um... that makes no sense whatsoever. Are you going to write another article for something called "dicknail"? -- Kicking222 21:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Funniest ever. 100 points. --Chris Griswold 06:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per BoojiBoy. -Big Smooth 20:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Hole. Not everything produced by a notable band is notable enough to have an entire article about it. The information is better served on Hole. Ted 20:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Aplomado ^talk 20:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This article damns itself. If it was notable, wouldn't it attract more than one lonely sentence and perhaps an image of an album cover? Nobody has added any content because one sentence was more content than the topic deserved. george 20:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Took 10 minutes and the magic of Google to find some background info and an image, and I'm not even a Hole fan. An editor who liked Hole would be able to expand this article much further. -Big Smooth 20:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Expansion by Big Smooth has drastically improved the article contents. I've changed my vote to Strong Keep. -- Scientizzle 20:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Well, maybe OK perhaps keep You have to throw an article into the deletion pile and then pound on it with both fists to get anyone to put even the basic information down. I'm totally opposed to one sentence articles, and a lot of them are given a free pass. george 21:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Unless there's some sort of specific Wikipedia policy you can point us to that forbids one-sentence articles, I don't see what your beef is. Aplomado ^talk 22:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Because one sentence articles aren't in the spirit of Wikipedia. Ever see a one sentence article in Britannica? Also, it is just plain lazy. If you care enough to start an article, then at least trouble yourself to write a couple paragraphs. Sheesh. george 02:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Single by a very notable band. Can't we just close these AfD discussions already? -- Kicking222 21:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not notable, its just a waste of space. Whether or not Courtney Love wrote proto-feminist anger songs about men's reproductive organs has and will have ZERO effect on history. Wikipedia is not a teen chat room or MySpace! george 02:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    • No offense, but you should be temporarily blocked from editing WP. You're trying to prove multiple points at the same time (that we should remove one-line stubs; that we should remove everything related to Hole; that we should removed articles with filthy titles), and all of your points are incredibly stupid. Guess what? I don't like Hole, either! And I hate Nirvana! But you know what else? Just because I don't like them doesn't mean I think we should eliminate their presence on WP. In my opinion, Nirvana is the most overrated band of all-time, but you won't see me AfD'ing Blew. No matter what you think, Hole is notable. Things with curses in them can be notable. And single-sentence articles can be notable. So get off your high horse and live with the fact that, in your mind, WP isn't perfect. Nothing is. -- Kicking222 03:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as the nominator has voted "keep." Aplomado ^talk 22:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Its still pretty lame. george 02:37, 14 June 2006 (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.