Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of allusions to the word "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 de-fucking-lete. DS 14:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

List of allusions to the word "fuck"
First of all, this list is extremely uncyclopedic, and I can't ever see it being useful. Secondly, it is also highly subjective, as what one person considers an allusion, someone else could be completely oblivious to. Basically, this "article" is a glaring WP:NOT violation, and fuckcruft. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The list could never be complete. The entries are not sourced. They're not even allusions! Fuckcruft indeed. -- Charlene 00:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Even if this didn't violate WP:NOT,it'd violate WP:V, as no sources for "fuck allusions" probably exist". Mitaphane talk 00:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete lol @ fuckcruft. Danny Lilithborne 00:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, salt to taste - only on Wikipedia could you have a list like this. Now, let's wait for the inevitable Inclusionist to suggest this is a valuable learning resource. -- Shrieking Harpy  . . . . . .       TalkundefinedCount 01:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It could be a good article if sources could be added, which would be easy to do. A bit of tidying would make it right.  scope_creep 01:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Um... Sources? Since when do people come out and say "WE'RE DISGUISING THE WORD FUCK SUCKAS!!!"? -Amarkov babble 01:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Amarkov, I got a laugh out of that comment. Authors and writers have been disguising sex words in literature for centuries. This list is has merit and has genuine knowledge contained in it. It would need to be expanded with historical references and sources. scope_creep 01:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't matter that they're doing it. What matters is that you can VERIFY that they are doing it. And you can not verify that the author is alluding to something without having them say so. -Amarkov babble 02:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Christ, Scope, I wasn't serious with my comment about Inclusionists you know. -- Shrieking Harpy  . . . . . .       TalkundefinedCount 02:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean, you didn't honestly think that would happen? Odd. -Amarkov babble 02:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. What a wonderful idea, a list of everything which might possibly be close to a certain swear word! We need the letter F there, too. -Amarkov babble 01:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * delete (BTW, DYK this word is also an allusion to the word "fuck it!", so this list must be very incomplete :-) `'mikkanarxi 01:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unencyclopedic, somewhat subjective. It's mildly amusing, but that's not a good enough reason to have a list. See: Lists in Wikipedia. --Icarus (Hi!) 02:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: See also Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_31. --Dhartung | Talk 02:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete would like to keep but have to agree with nominator †he Bread  03:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Ideally, this could have promise, but in reality this can become too fraking uncontrolled and unwieldy to be worthwhile.-- danntm T C 04:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete List cruft, collection of anything and everything are not encyclopedic. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. As HighInBC said, list cruft. -newkai t-c 05:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator, and "fsck" stands for "filesystem check", thank you very much. J I P  | Talk 06:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * D***** per above. MER-C 09:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete canonical listcruft. Guy 09:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Impossible to get a difinitive list.  Impossible to find references.  Moderatelly obscene.  Spinach Dip 09:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT] an indiscriminate collction of information, as incompleteable, and POV. This so [[WP:NOT that it ought to be on a WP:NOT at all, not ever, not under any circumstances. Pity it can't be speedied :(--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Why are people so obsessed with the word "fuck"? Why not "shit" or "damn" or "pumpernickel"?-- TBC Φ  talk?  20:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I cannot believe you just said pumpernickel! Oh no I said it too! HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's how my grandmother died, you insensitive clod! Daveydw ee b ( chat/patch ) 22:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom Hut 8.5 20:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- this kind of thing is incredibly common (they missed "F-bomb", too...), to the point where it's simply unmaintainable. If this were ever actually complete, it'd be freakin' huge. It might even develop its own gravitational field, then implode and kill us all. Daveydw ee b ( chat/patch ) 22:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Imploding gravitational field?? That is how my grandmothers uncles father died! HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete While it really is unneccesary for me to add my vote here, given there is already wide consensus, it's not every day that you get to say that something should get deleted because it constitutes 'fuckcruft' --The Way 23:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete, this article is unneccessary and will never be complete. It comes across as someone wanting to show how much allusions they can list to the word ****.--&#2384; S  e  adog  &#2384; 23:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, slightly amusing, but not encyclopædic. Lankiveil 00:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
 * Delete Not just because it violates notability policy, I just really want to use the word "fuckcruft" doktorb wordsdeeds 11:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Wholly unencyclopedic.--Anthony.bradbury 19:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and scatter the ashes. Smacks of an article written entirely because someone wanted to type the word "fuck" on the Wikipedia as badly as Doktorb wanted to type "fuckcruft".Vafthrudnir 22:55, 11 November 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.