Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films ordered by uses of the word "fuck" (3rd nomination)


 * 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 debate was no consensus (42/23/1). Mailer Diablo 00:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

List of films ordered by uses of the word "fuck"

 * For the first VFD discussion of this article, see Talk:List of films ordered by uses of the word fuck.
 * For the second AfD discussion of this article, see Articles_for_deletion/List_of_films_ordered_by_uses_of_the_word_fuck.


 * Merge- Wikipedia should have a list of films with the most expletives in. Although this would be less accurate it is a more interesting statistic.
 * Delete - This is the third time this has been nominated over the years, and the article still has the same problems. It isn't unverifiable per se, but it is unmaintainable.  Any verification of (or addition to) the article requires sitting through a each movie and counting how many times the word "fuck" is used.  The accuracy of the article is currently disputed, and there is no way to refute this without spending 5.6 days in front of a TV screen. -Vastango 23:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There is another way: get the script of the movie, then do a grep -c. Turnstep 16:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and watch for accuracy. The fact that the EB would never have such an article is a major selling point of Wikipedia. David | Talk 00:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * How can one "watch for accuracy"? -Vastango 00:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - many things in Wikipedia are verified by the fact that someone has bothered to do the research. BD2412  T 00:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Unconvincing deletion argument SP-KP 00:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not POV, unmaintanable, listcraft or any other good reason for a page like this to be deleted. Batmanand 00:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unconvincing. This is my favorite page on WP and sometimes we need some fun.  People have already put time into maintaining, I'm sure they will continue to do so. -Jcbarr 00:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, per BD2412.
 * Keep. Not at all convinced by the argument to delete. List seems to be impeccably maintained. Verification concerns could be addressed by spending the days or weeks required to count the fucks as numerous editors already have. Would be nice if we had comparable lists for other words. -- JJay 01:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Unencyclopedic and juvenile.--T. Anthony 01:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Almanacopedic. Ashibaka tock 01:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Name an Almanac with an article like this. I'll look through the ones I have.--T. Anthony 03:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Only Wikipedia's almanac has this because we have the best almanac. Ashibaka tock 03:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well okay, but I don't see why getting into this level of movie trivia is doing something better than other Almanacs. Added to that why limit to this word? I imagine there are plenty of words more shocking to hear in films today. Maybe we could have List of films ordered by uses of the word "cunt" or List of films ordered by uses of the word "kyke". If rarity matters maybe List of films ordered by uses of the word "quincunx". All of these could be verified in similar ways, checking scripts etc, but that doesn't mean any of them would be definitively correct as there are many scripts that get filmed out there. Especially when you include non-US English language films.--T. Anthony 17:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Any page that gets people clicking and finding out about things they didn't know before is brilliant, this definitely qualifies Deiz 02:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. "fucks per minute", whoa!. Shall we disambiguate FPM and redirect fpm there? mikka (t) 02:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, OK, I declare I am a listcruft advocate! Still, this is one of the most commonly asked questions on the IMDB message boards. Might be verifiable, some family film websites may actually review all profanity to the level of counting the rude words. --Canley 02:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I really don't think this is original research after a thorough reading of WP:OR, and I doubt the editors of the article have actually counted the words themselves - several sources other than the films themselves are cited at the bottom. All this talk about it being unmaintainable: one tends to notice 5 FPM(!) in a film, and there is usually a media uproar. I also think information like this is what makes WIkipedia wonderful and I don't think these lists need to be utterly complete to be interesting and informative. --Canley 09:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It provides information and as long as it is updated and kept accurate why not. Remember that more than one person is checking accuracy of the article. Martin 03:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Paste an appropriate tag on it warning users that the information may not be entirely accurate, due to the difficulties of verifability. Copysan 04:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It would only be unmaintainable if it tried to list every movie that used the word. As it stands, it is a list of the top 80 or so -- Astrokey44 |talk 04:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, good list. --Ter e nce Ong (恭喜发财) 05:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Like JJay and others above, I find the arguments for deletion aren't convincing, and it has scholarly merit in a Gershon Legman sort of way.  --Lockley 05:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not extremely difficult to verify, though I suppose it borders on original research. I verified the count for Glenngarry Glen Ross (film) by a) downloading a copy of the script; b) opening the text in Microsoft Word; c) running search-and-replace for "fuck" d) reading the dialog box at the end, which told me how many times it replaced the word. A kludge, but then, I'm an English Lit major, not a hacker. --Calton | Talk 06:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. It goes without saying that people will use this as an adjunct to their movie-choosing process. Why not? Adrian Lamo · (talk)  · (mail) · 07:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I hate pointless lists, but this is capriciously amusing. Eusebeus 07:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research. Requires more original research on a regular basis to be kept up to date. Choalbaton 08:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Indiscriminate list of information. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is, pardon the expression, fucking useless. Furthermore, it's nigh-impossible to verify. --Agamemnon2 10:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete. per Eusebeus. Maybe we should include a statement introducing the list, stating the difficulties in maintaining the list and make sure that readers take the list with a bit of salt while reading it. --Johnnyw 11:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry? You're saying that we can ignore the fact that it fails WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR (and quite possibly WP:NOT) as long as we tell people?  That would be OK if it was in the Project space, maybe as part of the relevant Wikiproject, but this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a collection of unverified toilet humour trivia! - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 14:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What I was trying to say is, that it was a borderline issue imho. But I have to admit that you are right that's it's still violating WP:NOR no matter how we change the list and therefore, I (sadly) change my vote to delete.


 * Delete. Its an interesting list, but not one for wikipedia. It's unreferenced original research. -- jeffth  e  jiff  ( talk ) 11:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as listcruft, and for failing WP:NOR and WP:V. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. I also have concerns regarding verifiability and OR (but without further digging can't motivate to delete on those grounds yet). Zunaid 11:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC) Please see the talk page where I've listed reasons. Zunaid 15:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. Unverifiable.  Necessarily incomplete, hence essentially worthless. GWO 12:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Can be verified. Frankchn 12:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep . Nominator: "This is the third time this has been nominated over the years, and the article still has the same problems." Well, if it has the same problems, and the last time it was voted on there was consensus to keep, then it's a bit pointless renominating it until it somehow develops some new problems. No offence intended to the nominator - I'm all for renominating articles kept by 'no consensus', but not those kept by consensus. --Malthusian (talk) 12:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, sometimes I'm just wrong to the extent of talking WP:BALLS. Obvious original research, delete, but please, someone move this to their personal webpage or something. --Malthusian (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - unsourced OR. A shame, really. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete but send to the people compiling the nominations for the prestigious most gratuitous use of the word "fuck" in a serious screenplay award. Formally, it is unverifiable, unsourced and therfore original research. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 14:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for failure to meet WP:V and WP:NOR. Monicasdude 14:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-02-01 15:00Z 
 * Strong Keep The list is not original research. It is not original research to check how many times a movie says 'fuck'.  It is interaction with a primary source document.  Something that is encouraged in original research.  Just because the primary source document is a movie doesn't make it any less valid.  The list is verifiable; it is better sourced than a lot of articles (largely because people keep trying to delete it).  The list doesn't have to be definitive; that is impossible...then we would have no lists at all. Hdstubbs 15:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment From WP:NOR "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." - All this list does is collect and organize the information in a primary source document,Hdstubbs 16:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think that it's that easy. Counting the stars in the night sky is also collecting and organizing the information in a primary source: Still, we do not state that the sky at night at a certain time in a certain spot of the world has XXXX thousands of stars. --Johnnyw 18:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I already addressed this on the talk page but movies are finite, stars (arguably) are not. This like counting all the stars that are listed in a book on stars and not the stars themselves. Hdstubbs 19:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The number of visible stars in the night sky is finite. I think the unaided human eye can see around 10,000.--T. Anthony 22:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; Entirely insufficient deletion criteria for a page that has already been retained twice. Sorry, but you'll need to do better. :) &mdash; RJH 16:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete agree with original research, unverifiable, and it even has a disclaimer that it is not complete - just what the wikipedia DOESN'T need - another list. The Deviant 16:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Really. --Sachabrunel 17:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This list has gotten radio exposure, and is very interesting. I think it can be verified easily! Until YOU site down and find an inaccuracy, then opt for deletion. Your objection is NOT SUBSTANTIATED!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.240.136.82 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment Looks to me the movies are all bigger productions, not including anything else. Give me a break, I've seen plenty of smaller productions (yet still notable productions) that I *know* have more "fucks" than some of these movies.  The point being - this list is not even accurate (as it even disclaims in the article itself) and therefore is pointless. The Deviant 16:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Being unmaintainable is not a deletion criteria, last I looked. Even if it were, the article looks very well maintained to me. Turnstep 19:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I found it quite interesting, and it is well researched - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px]] • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | •  T 21:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep useful list --Jaranda wat's sup 21:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I really did want to keep this, but sadly it is unsourced - the references are not of a verifiable standard, and without these it is original research. So, unless a properly verifiable source for the information in this page is produced, delete. Sliggy 22:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Nice page. But counting the word Fuck in a film is doing primary research.  This article is thus original research (it becomes the secondary source).  Saying we can go count ourselves, is like saying you can buy your own telescope and track star movement.  As editors, we can't verify this except by repeating the count. Obina 23:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research, forever intrinsically incomplete, and unencyclopedic subject matter.   Starry Eyes  00:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. cooki e caper (talk / contribs) 00:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Why not List of films ordered by uses of the word "the"?  What exactly is the difference?  Profanity?  Then to borrow T. Anthony's argument, where does it end?  List of films ordered by uses of the word "shit"?  List of films ordered by uses of the word "damn"?  List of films ordered by uses of the word "golly"?  Where does it end?  What is the point?  Why am I speaking only in questions?  And another thing: what about foreign language films?  Is there always going to be an exact 1:1 equivalent, or is it possible that some language has multiple approximate equivalents of the word "fuck", like the Inuit have for "snow"?  Raggaga 00:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I seem to recall that the English (language) itself features various "approximate equivalents of the word 'fuck' (Wiktionary)"--Johnnyw 00:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Skirts the edge of notability, but there really should be some guidelines on lists like this. Maybe top 100 at most. This is actually a list that someone might look for. Haikupoet 03:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete NN list. Arbustoo 06:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, everyone needs to calm down.Avengerx 12:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unverifiable. Virtually no good reasons to keep. Listcruft. Stifle 15:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting and verifiable. Ignore all the slippery slope arguments. –Shoaler (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It is verifiable, and editors not wanting to take the time to do so doesn't mean it's not. Baiter 17:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah? And the stopwatches have been calibrated to the relevant National Standards? And doesn't WP:NOT say that Wikipedia is not a "publisher of first instance"? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 18:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep verifieable and interesting. these articles are the fun of wikipedia, a whole load of "useful" information ;)
 * KEEP! - dj315 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.247.36 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. Should add a comparative graph, stating which films are prohibited according to which authorities (films 1 to 50 prohibited according to X, 1 to 28 according to Y, and 1 to 500 for laxists sunday-believers). If a number of fpm can't be measured, than which base unit could? Lapaz 02:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is pointless nonsense!RayGates 02:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - listcruft, fails WP:V and WP:NOR. Also unencyclopaedic. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 07:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Certainly verifiable. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 13:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Has historical value, should be kept as reference to landmark films.
 * Keep Good list. Staxringold 19:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not sure which way to vote yet. I would like to suggest that this article be changed to something along the lines of a top 10 list, otherwise (considering the popularity and frequent use of "fuck") it'd be hard to maintain and keep complete. What I'm saying is, shouldnt we only list the films there which are actually notable for the excessive use of the word? And FFS, some reworking is needed anyway, "fucks per minute"?!  Ban  e  z  20:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to be one way to look at motion pictures and is at least as encyclopedic (but less highbrow, perhaps) as List of Hitchcock cameo appearances. Carlossuarez46 21:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Articles like this are what's great about Wikiedia. The statistics can even be verified more easily than by watching these entire movies and counting; check out the Family Media Guide. They are VERY reliable. BigaZon 21:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Very interesting! That would solve the NOR issue. Although there seem to be differences between the counts. Scarface is listed at WP with 218 fucks, Family Media Guide counted "F-word(207)". --Johnnyw 23:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and find more "family value" sites that give sources for the "fuck" count. Kusma (討論) 16:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, topic with verifiable third-party coverage. Kappa 19:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, verifiable and interesting. Essexmutant 12:05, 5 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.