Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Complete bollocks

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP, xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 01:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Complete bollocks

completing an anons unfinished nomination. no reason given. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 21:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• keep doing no harm and frequently referred to in afd. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 21:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Yeah, keep because it's user-friendly and brings the occasional smile to heated debates. Guy 22:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Strange. It's the anon's sole edit to the project. Perhaps their pet article was accused of being complete bollocks? Guy 22:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Now, now, let's assume good faith. There's nothing weird about coming across a page, thinking it should be deleted, and flagging it for deletion. Robin Johnson 13:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Who said anything about bad faith? The place this is most commonly used is on AfD. Just zis Guy you know? 21:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - it seemed to me to be an assumption of bad faith to suggest that the article was only flagged for deletion out of spite. Robin Johnson 12:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• keep - its worth reading, since its more of a user friendly version of WP Patent Nonsense... a more understandable version. Might not be poliy, but needs to be left behind. Thor Malmjursson 01:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep. Cute, not mean-spirited, solid advice. There are several of these humor pages floating about, so it might be wise to merge them together into a humorous magnum opus eventually, but this is fine for now. Xoloz 05:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Very usefull, very amusing and very British. --Bduke 08:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Very strong delete. Totally incompatible with WP:CIV. BJAODN perhaps. Robin Johnson 12:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Robin, there is nothing in WP:CIV which would make this page inompatible. Thor Malmjursson 20:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Calling something untrue is civil. Calling it bollocks is not. The examples of "rudeness", "judgmental tone" and "calling someone a liar" seem to cover it. Robin Johnson 12:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you be rude to an article? The authors of complete bollocks are not making any real claims to veracity, so to implicitly call them a liar would not be offensive. Also, complete bollocks has humourous tone that patent nonsense doesn't making this less ofensive.--Mongreilf 14:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, per Xoloz. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Offensive and unnecessary. "Complete nonsense" would have been fine. ^{The preceeding unsigned comment was added by IP Address 82.13.44.237 user's first edit to wp}
• Comment. I'm puzzled. What is offensive? Is it the title? Maybe, I'm just a robust Australian. Nobody here would be offended by "bollocks". In fact that is what they would say to the suggestion that the word is offensive. --Bduke 21:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be offended if someone told me I was talking bollocks. If they told me what I was saying wasn't true, I'd be in a mind to see if I could argue my point (civilly), which is what makes Wikipedia so great. As soon as they say 'bollocks' I'll assume the name-calling has begun, and go away. Robin Johnson 12:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

So would you then call the policy article Wikipedia:Patent Nonsense, as being against WP:CIV? Since telling someone who added to an article that what they put is patent nonsense also effectively accuses them of being a liar? I would simply consider Complete Bollocks to be nothing more than a simple piece of someone telling it like it is! Plus, remember, Wikipedia is not censored for anyone! Thor Malmjursson 13:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Patent Nonsense is for "insalvageably incoherent" articles, not factually incorrect ones, as Bollocks claims to be (and, for another point, WP:HOAX already covers.) I'm not arguing for censorship of Wikipedia itself; I suppose I am arguing for self-censorship in discussion between Wikipedians, if by "self-censorship" I mean "not being rude". "Telling it like it is" should be possible without using insulting language; and restraint from using insulting language does not really censor you, because there are no points you can't make without it. I'm very surprised to see I'm in a minority here. Robin Johnson 14:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. - it's amusing and has already been referenced to. — Rickyrab | Talk 02:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per JzG. Remember we're supposed to enjoy ourselves :).--Sean Black ^(talk) 02:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I was involved in what I believe was the first suggestion of this page during an AFD debate, which one escapes me currently. It is humorous. There are somethings that can best be described as complete bollocks. I have to agree with JzG and Sean Black. If someone uses it incivilly, call them on it.—WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 05:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Xorkl000 06:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Sean Black, well said. Forbsey 11:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Blue520 02:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. It is essential to be able to call complete bollocks complete bollocks. Note that this refers to the content, not the contributor; if someone thinks this violates NPA, I submit that they may be a bit unclear on this rather important distinction. PurplePlatypus 10:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. --Optichan 19:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Sadly useful (and sadly frequently useful). --Calton | Talk 02:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. New to recent changes patrolling, I've felt inclined to use it a few times already. Often something doesn't quite fall under the Patent Nonsense criteria but needs to be highlighted as Complete Bollocks. See Super Panda for a good recent example. Hynca-Hooley 20:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very useful reference when dealing with articles on AfD. Useful when something is not quite patent nonsense.  (aeropagitica)  22:19, 27 February 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.