Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bollocks (2nd nomination)
is a policy, and it should be followed. Hence my !vote. The nom also asked why is  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.  includes the policy , 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 . Mention of other articles in this nomination, whether in existence or not yet created are all . My one concern (though not relevant to this debate) is that the key reference to Wycliffe's 1382 bible is uncited, and http://ebible.org/study/content/texts/ENGW88/LV22.html 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 Wikipedia:Complete bollocks
— User:Nick, 19:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:DICTDEF||WP:DICTDEF||WP:WORDISSUBJECT||WP:WORDISSUBJECT||WP:WAX (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary)