Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Songs Containing the word Fuck in a Prominent Position


 * 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 nomination was delete. DS 20:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Songs Containing the word Fuck in a Prominent Position
Listcruft, prominent is a subjective word. Creator removed prod. So here it is. Crossmr 04:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete,per the nominate, listcruft — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.54.244.34 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 7 July 2006

commentProminent may be in the title but there are very specific guidelines in the article itself and no way around using "prominent" in the title. --Lord mortekai 04:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * comment and as pointed out, creating those guidelines is an attempt to control the article and a violation of WP:OWN--Crossmr 04:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I created the guidelines because people felt that prominent was not clear enough so I am providing a definition of prominent in this context. This has nothing to do with ownership of the article I merely made the guidelines to make a better case against deletion. --Lord mortekai 04:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Then you move the article to a better name. Creating guidelines for adding content to an article regardless of the reason is attempting to control the article. That still doesn't address the issue of it being listcruft.--Crossmr 04:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Where does it say on WP:OWN that adding guidelines is ownership? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord mortekai (talk • contribs) 04:40, 7 July 2006
 * Read the guideline. Controlling content is a violation of WP:OWN. Creating guidelines is an attempt to control the content. They don't have to spell out every single behaviour that could be interpreted as a way to control content.--Crossmr 04:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:LIST says that lists are supposed to have clear guidelines as to what is included. It's not OWNing the article at all, unless he's trying to prevent anyone else from changing them. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 05:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Cross. The article name could be changed to settle the ambiguity issue (ie List of songs containing the word Fuck in the title or chorus) but the point remains, this is just an indiscriminate topic for a list. Mango juice talk 04:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How do you figure that it is indiscriminate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord mortekai (talk • contribs) 04:48, 7 July 2006
 * please make sure you sign your comments and thread them appropriately. Its indescriminate because its a random, non-notable criteria to base a song list on.--Crossmr 04:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

commentAs I said, no more so indiscriminate than many other similar lists. --Lord mortekai 04:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Something got lost in an edit conflict, regarding other lists: The article has to stand on its own. Other poor lists are not justifications for this list.--Crossmr 04:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

commentHow do you figure that it is indiscriminate? If you are asserting that this nature of article does not belong in wikipedia you have a lot more deleting to do. Articles of this kind are what make wikipedia wikipedia, in my opinion and many others'. You fail to bring up a specific guideline when suggesting that it is indiscriminate. --Lord mortekai 04:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * no, these articles are not what make wikipedia wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a home for random trivia.--Crossmr 04:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Ridiculous listcruft. Why so many people like creating these weird lists about nothing, I'll never understand. Edit conflict addendum: no, it's the "free encyclopedia" bit that makes wikipedia what it is, not the presence or absence of this list. Opabinia regalis 04:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete oh dear. You might as well have a list of songs featuring the piano. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

you certainly enjoy making people miserable don't you; nobody gives a shit about wikipedia as a source of knowledge it's banned at many schools as a citation source. nobody will give two shits about it once you take away any vaguely interesting pieces of information like this --Lord mortekai 05:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA--Crossmr 05:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that does it then. If we delete this, students won't be able to hand in school papers citing our list of songs that use the word fuck. Oh, the humanity. Opabinia regalis 05:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Is Songs About Hair less indiscriminate than this? --User:Lord Mortekai 05:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You can't justify this article based on another.--Crossmr 05:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

commentanswer the question --Lord mortekai 19:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What question? Sign your comments and follow proper thread order please. --Crossmr 05:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Acnecruft ~ trialsanderrors 05:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete listcruft. The ridiculous statements from the lone guy defending this article's existence only makes it worse. Danny Lilithborne 06:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 06:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Danny Lilithborne and Coredesat. User:Angr 07:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * delete per nom. Chicheley 07:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This is no longer at all uncommon, nor is it encyclopaedic. There is little connection to be drawn among songs that use fuck in the title or chorus, so this criterium is a bit too arbitrary to justify the list. If the topic interests you, I'm sure you could compile a list at some Internet forum or another. GassyGuy 08:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I thought this was supposed to be an encyclopedia... Amists 09:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as pointless list, or next up it's ...Songs Containing the word Love..., ...Songs Containing the word Bitch..., Songs Containing the word Kangaroo.... --DaveG12345 10:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Unimportant CommentWe don't already have a kangaroo song list? I'm shocked. GassyGuy 10:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Since "pointless list" is being questioned as a valid reason for deletion below, I should amplify my reasoning. The article fails policies WP:NOTA7 and WP:V. These policies are referenced in an apposite way in Listcruft. --DaveG12345 18:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "pointless list" is not a valid CSD and my comment was adressed to the user immediately below. Since you are amplifying your resaoning, please explain specifically how this violates WP:not (without referring to the listcruft essay, which has no validity here). --JJay 18:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." I would argue a collection of songs containing an unremarkable word is precisely an "indiscriminate collection of items of information", in violation of "Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia." The door is opened to other lists of songs, containing other unremarkable words, ad infinitum. If you cannot see that (or if you can see that, but could not care less) then you need to re-read WP:NOT. Incidentally, the primary source nature of the list (it appears no one verifiable has catalogued these songs per some or all of the list criteria, allowing WP editors to then cite them as a verifiable member of this list) also helps it fail WP:NOR. Violation of any one of these policies is grounds for deletion. Multiple failures such as this make it an open-and-shut case. If you want to continue to debate this, you will have to explain to me how it does not fail every single one of these policies first. Because fail them it surely does. --DaveG12345 18:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete totally pointless. -- Emc² ( CONTACT ME ) 12:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No encyclopedic value and the whole thing smacks of twelve year olds buying CDs with parental advisory stickers on them to feel tough. Get rid of it! Keresaspa 13:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per GassyGuy. Defined criteria is far too arbitrary to justify this list.--Isotope23 13:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - crap, I mean cruft. -- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 15:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete It's all been said above. This has no place here. -- Alias Flood 16:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Now. Maybe having an additional vote will get rid of a listcruft page faster? >.> --Targetter 22:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per all above. Article does not make a case for its own existence, and author tries to control content. HumbleGod 23:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The only two users contesting the delete have been busy here today, yet one always takes a break when the other one's editing, and both comment in the same non-standard way. FWIW I suspect sockpuppetry at play. HumbleGod 23:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems like a valid topic for a list to me, not unlike a similar list we have for the use of fuck in movies. Inclusion criteria can obviously be tweaked. Having said that, I would respectfully suggest that the nom review WP:OWN, which he clearly does not understand . Setting parameters for a list = editing an article. It is the recommmended course of action in the List guideline. There is thus no reason to attack the author of this article and some of the editors here should probably review WP:AGF as well. The speedy deleters above also have no grounds for their "votes". "Totally pointless" is opinion; It is not a CSD. --JJay 03:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Discussion moved to talk page.


 * Delete. There is no article on the topic of Songs Containing the word Fuck in a Prominent Position, because it is not a valid encyclopedic topic. In general, "List of X" should not be created unless there is a valid article on X, and it should begin as a section of that article and not be broken off until it gets to be to long. (Say, I've heard of a lot of sexual positions, but the "prominent position" is new to me...) Dpbsmith (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete since there is no evidence that the inclusion of the word fuck in songs is an encyclopaedic topic, and the word "prominent" is subjective. And it's juvenile. Just zis Guy you know? 15:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No evidence?? See Seven dirty words. Use of the word fuck in song titles has commercial and legal ramifications. Regarding the rest of your comment, are you suggesting that the title can't be changed? And since when is "juvenile", whatever that means, grounds for deletion? Is the corresponding cinema list, which has survived AfD three times, not "juvenile"? --JJay 16:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep because if the list is expanded, it could turn out to be a very good informational list, kind of like List of films ordered by uses of the word "fuck". - Bagel7 16:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment When George Carlin or the Family Media Guide creates a list of songs containing "fuck", there may be grounds for writing an article citing them, per Seven dirty words and List of films ordered by uses of the word "fuck". The "commercial and legal ramifications" of "fuck" are unremarkable on their own - the "ramifications" talked about are fairly minor in reality, they are crucially not restricted to use of this one word, and besides, JJay alleges that it's the use of "fuck" "in titles" that has significance - if that's so, why on earth is this article being mealy-mouthed about "prominent positions"? Maybe thirty years ago this would have been an exciting and edgy topic, but today, I personally find it rather tame and crufty - "juvenile" even, FWIW. Aside from my POV, I note no one has yet explained how this article successfully passes the WP policies that I cited above (WP:NOTA7, WP:V, WP:NOR). It would definitely help the article's case if this were done.--DaveG12345 16:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * George Carlin and the Family Media Guide may not be in the song list business, but the RIAA is and has been for some time with their parental advisory label (and fuck is a part of that). You may not believe that the "commercial and legal" ramifications of the word fuck are "remarkable", and you might have been right, except that the word "fuck" can lead to FCC and FTC investigations (ask Bono) and get your album banned at Wal-Mart. That is far from minor considering that Wal-Mart is the biggest retailer in the United States. You have claimed above that fuck is an "unremarkable" word. That is seemingly belied by our long fuck article and associated category: Category:Fuck. If you want to argue that this fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information that is your business, but this article does not come close to any of the specific clauses (travel guide, memorial, genealogy, aphorisms, etc.). Basing your reasoning on the line: That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia is also not a particularly compelling argument: (i) it is a generic argument that can be applied indiscriminately to any article up for deletion; (ii) the three AfD discussions involving the cinema list have already proven the viability of the subject. I won't address your comment on "edgy and exciting" or "tame and crufty" since I don't believe that those sort of subjective judgements have any bearing on inclusion of reference material. Lastly, I do not see any conflict with WP:V or WP:NOR. The song titles are listed on the albums. The albums are available through commercial sites and are reviewed. Are you really suggesting that editors can not confirm that America, Fuck Yeah is really called America Fuck Yeah? If that is the case, perhaps you would like to add a fact tag to the title of the America, Fuck Yeah article. --JJay 17:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment "Titles" - you keep mentioning "titles". And yet this article is not concerning itself with "titles" is it? How about a new article name - List of Albums Banned by Walmart? Assuming you can cite either Walmart or a reliable commentator that the albums were indeed banned, then that might be a viable topic. Or List of Albums with a Parental Advisory Sticker on the Front? As long as evidence is brought forth, even that might work. But please don't confuse albums with mere songs. This article is about songs, and does not mention or seek to address RIAA guidelines, Walmart practices, or anything else of substance whatsoever. You seem to suggest my criticisms are wholly "subjective", yet you do not acknowledge that your own arguments here are completely subjective also, and fail to engage with the WP policies cited. Don't ask me "are you suggesting...?"-type questions (you already said you dismiss subjective views, so why would you care what I'm "suggesting"?). Instead, cite the policies and explain exactly how this article complies. You seem to misunderstand (and pretty much ignore, in fact) WP:NOR in relation to this article. Please explain how this article complies with its requirements: i.e., that this article constitutes a tertiary source and not original research. Where are the reliable source citations, as explicitly required by WP:V whether you recognise them as a formal requirement or not? A lot of this discussion consists of setting up straw-men. Address the policies and this article, not rhetorical questions and other WP articles. It will help a lot. --DaveG12345 17:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Starting with my very first post much higher on this page, I indicated that the article could evolve and the title could change. That requires editing, which takes time. Certainly longer than the 26 minute window given to the author before it was tagged for speedy deletion. Therefore, considering the almost immediate deletion tagging and repeated removal of edits by the AfD nominator, I hardly think that it is fair to complain about what the article "seeks to address". Despite your refusal to answer my question, I will point out again that the article does not violate any of the specific clauses of WP:NOT. You apparently agree with me since you have not, despite repeated requests, indicated a specific clause. I commented above on WP:V and WP:NOR. I do not see how either is contravened by listing songs that have the word fuck in their titles. Other aspects of the list should be sourced, just like with any other article. --JJay 23:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. To summarise your view, if this article had a different title and different contents, you believe it may pass WP:V and WP:NOR. I dare say you are 100% correct. It would be a totally different article. I therefore don't see why deletion of this one is opposed, since you seem to agree that its title and contents intrinsically fail those policies. You dismissed my citation of WP:NOTA7 as "subjective" above. This being the case, I really have no desire to discuss that point any further - your own dismissal of it is "subjective" to my mind, so round and round that goes without any conclusion in sight. Thanks again for your time.--DaveG12345 23:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest you reread my comments. The only time I used the word "subjective" in our discussion was in the following line: I won't address your comment on "edgy and exciting" or "tame and crufty" since I don't believe that those sort of subjective judgements have any bearing on inclusion of reference material. I will be happy to withdraw that comment if "edgy and exciting" or "tame and crufty" are actually in the WP:NOT policy. In fact, I "dismissed" your citation of WP:NOT by stating that it was not a "particularly compelling argument". It will remain uncompelling until you cite a specific clause in the WP:NOT criteria. Those criteria are there for a reason, essentially because the policy is specific rather than elastic. Other than that, I will say that your summary of my "views" was an excellent demonstration of your "subjectivity". --JJay 00:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, whereas your outright dismissal of my argument as "not a particularly compelling" one represents a rigorous application of objective truths and logic, I suppose? Ho hum. If I have applied "subjectivity" above re WP:V and WP:NOR, please feel free to explain this article's obvious failure of those core policies in terms that do not ultimately advise a change in both its title and content - I should be interested to hear that. Until the WP:V/WP:NOR failure can be explained in such terms by somebody, I think this discussion is over for me.--DaveG12345 16:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to handle disagreement very well, do you? "Not particularly compelling" is very different from an outright dismissal...and once again, I never said you applied "subjectivity" regarding WP:V or WP:NOR. I would appreciate it if you stopped trying to put words in my mouth. I have already commented on WP:V and WP:NOR multiple times above, such as when I wrote: I do not see how either is contravened by listing songs that have the word fuck in their titles. Other aspects of the list should be sourced, just like with any other article. Otherwise, I fail to see why you object to a change of title and/or content regarding this article. It is a frequent outcome on AFD that editing changes are suggested for nominated articles (merge or redirect are other possible outcomes). I have defended this article because I think the concept is valid and feasible within existing policy and guidelines. That you don't is fine with me. --JJay 19:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That you do is equally fine with me. --DaveG12345 23:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

One suggestion: maybe instead of arguing whether the article is valid we could just change the guidelines to make it work? No one said the main criteria (appears in chorus, song title etc.) couldn't be changed. --68.227.185.195 18:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem here isn't just changing the criteria to make them work. As I see it, this article violates List guideline ("Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources") and WP:OR (without a reputable source, everything on that page is original research). Unless an outside study can be found along the lines of "songs with prominent usage of 'fuck'" (and a quick search didn't find anything along those lines), the criteria (and this article in full) can't be modified in any way that satisfies WP policy. At best, we could delete the article and start over as "List of songs ordered by usage of 'fuck'"--IF an outside study by a reputable source has been done on that (which again, I'm not finding yet). Otherwise, this article will always inherently violate WP policy. HumbleGod 18:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Another point: "prominent" is not one of the criteria for adding to the list, it is merely in the title for lack of a better word and because if the title consisted of the actually criteria it would be long and awkward. --Lord mortekai 18:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You just contradicted yourself. You say the problem isn't changing criteria, then say that the criteria are ambiguous. If you feel they are ambiguous, change them. --Lord mortekai 18:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails WP:NOR in its current form. --Chris (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no original research; you can easilly verify whether or not any song contains fuck in the chorus, in the title or repeated in the song. --Lord mortekai 18:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think, with respect, this misses one of the points of WP:NOR. Whether or not what Lord mortekai says is true, we cannot "easily verify" whether songs not on the list have the word "fuck" more prominently positioned than the ones arbitrarily selected by the editors of this article for inclusion. Without a reliable source or sources whom we can trust to select the songs based on prominence beforehand, we are left with inherent WP:NOR failure (as HumbleGod notes above) through the unsourced song selections made by editors, and we are left with the (obvious) WP:V failure too, because no one can cite a single source for any of these editor choices. Rather than say "you can tell it should be on the list from the title", etc., I would like to know how we can tell there aren't other songs better suited for the list than these chosen ones. The only way we could be sure of that, would be by following WP:NOR, and making this article into a tertiary source, which currently it is not. Nothing - as HumbleGod says - is going to change this problem without some bona fide reliable sources for this list. Sorry. --DaveG12345 23:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete pointless. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:01, 10 July 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.