Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuck


 * 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 no decision made, just closed. - brenneman  00:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Fuck

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Article does not include any verifiable sources to back up assertions. Appears to be entirerly original research. &mdash;Malber (talk • contribs) 21:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Oh, for this article's sake. Tevildo 21:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The nominator has not put the AfD tag on the article.  Normally, I'd do that, but this is such a patently-obvious keep that I don't feel that I should.  However, if we're strictly adhering to policy, I suppose somebody should fix this. Tevildo 22:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure what you mean by "does not include any verifiable sources," it's got sources at the bottom of the article where they belong. For the most part; I would say this is a fairly good article, but I could see a transwiki to Wikiticionary (yes, I know, I always spell that wrong).  ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 22:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Nominator has withdrawn the AfD from the log page. I think the actual AfD debate (this page) should be deleted - G6 or G7? - so that any subsequent AfD won't conflict with it.  Alternatively, the AfD can be closed in-process. (placed by User:Tevildo in G7 request for this page) SkierRMH 00:25, 12 January 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.