Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films ordered by uses of the word "fuck" (4th 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 nomination was keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 06:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

List of films ordered by uses of the word "fuck"
Seriously arbitrary list, almost totally unverifiable. Listcruft. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Would it be to much to ask to link to the three previous nominations of this article? --JJay 21:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Previous nominations
 * 1st nomination
 * 2nd nomination
 * 3rd nomination. ** -- PT ( s-s-s-s ) 22:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Tevildo 21:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - this should be pretty obvious. List is clearly not arbitrary, and This article is somewhat hard to write is not a good criteria for deletion.  At least one source is cited.  A cleanup may be in order, however. WilyD 22:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per previous nominations of this article. Dionyseus 22:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm confused as to how this could possibly be unverifiable. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. So where are the reliable sources for this article? (a couple of forum posts and a list made by Mr 5intheface are surely not reliable sources!) If you mean someone can watch it and count, this surely goes against No original research. Original research is material that has not been previously published by a reputable source. It includes data. I'm confused, as there seems to be a strong consensus to keep, but these issues have not been addressed on Talk:List of films ordered by uses of the word "fuck" as far as I can see? Mdwh 22:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: if you are in the mood for swearing, check out these 2 pages from the Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense: It took 'em multiple noms and some underhanded tactics to get rid of these, but now they're in Wikipedia's protected humor section. Enjoy. --Trinity Skyward 05:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 *  Delete Keep, though we should sort the opinions here by the use of the word "fuck" Fiddle Faddle 00:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have re-read the article, and have changed my mind. A bit of table fomratting would not go amiss, though! Fiddle Faddle 07:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep but clean up. I'm one of the people pushing strongest for deletion of the list of songs containing the word Fuck in a prominent position. However, in that case we have a list that has to rely on original research. This article, on the other hand, references the Family Media Guide website, which (while perhaps not always accurate) does have the quoted statistics and sets the guidelines that this article was formed around. (Remember, WP:V says we're aiming for "verifiability, not truth.") What we need to do with this article is eliminate any word count NOT provided by FMG's research. This means the "Fuck's" column needs to go and the "FPM" column needs to be revised to reflect the FMG research. If the movie hasn't been researched by FMG, get it off the list. With this done, I think it should satisfy WP guidelines just fine. HumbleGod 01:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Before I forget to mention this....Having been shown this page in the other AfD, I've been cruising the talk page over the last few days. I had suggested finding another source for the other word counts that FMG did not provide, but the only steady one I could find is IMDB. The problem there is that Premium members of the site can submit trivia, where the Fuck count is located, and I wouldn't be surprised if these members were using WP as a source! Around and around it goes. Thus, the only easy solution I can find is to just stick with FMG results and ditch the rest. HumbleGod 01:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the list, and delete the nominator. :) The list has survived 3 snipe attempts already. Wikipedia is supposed to be uncensored, so quit trying to censor it. The nominator is obviously offended by the subject matter of the list.  But so what.  KEEP!.  I've seen most of the movies on the list and found the comparison enlightening.  The list is anything but arbitrary.  How much swearing is in a movie contributes to its tone and intensity.  The list is the Richter Scale for movies, and gives a rough indication of how much each movie will shake you up!  Knowing the movies' level of swearing can help you pick what to watch based on what you are in the mood for.  The list is innovative, informative, fun, and a perfect example of why Wikipedia stands apart from all other encyclopedias.  You won't find anything like this in the Britannica.  It's a keeper.  Put the list on your watchlist guys, 'cuz they'll be gunning for this one again. --Trinity Skyward 05:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it's worth mentioning that this article has improved after every AfD nomination to date. The first nomination led from the Guinness-like "record" page to the current "list"; the second established a consensus that verifiability could be met; the third provided a good resource for so doing (FMG). And I'm hoping that this one will lead to my recommendation, the elimination of all non-verifiable (i.e. non-FMG) records in the article. In other words, even though I think this article should stay and I suspect it will, I'm glad it was nominated again. The only thing bugging me is that its biggest problems were being discussed and worked out on the article's Talk page when this was nominated. But if the AfD discussion pushes it forward, all the better. HumbleGod 06:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am not in the least bit offended by the list, but I maintain that it has no reliable sources and is thus original research, among other things. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Sexual slang
 * 2) Body parts slang.
 * Comment: I went ahead and changed the chart (thank goodness for sleepless nights) to remove all non-FMG content and reorder appropriately. The downside: far fewer entries. The upside: as far as I can tell, the list no longer threatens to violate WP:NOR and WP:V.
 * Other notes:
 * Fucks Per Minute count still relies on old data and will have to be recalculated (by someone else, I'm done with it!)
 * I removed the ranking column temporarily to make it easier to adjust the chart; however, as one user noted on the article's Talk page, it may be better this way, as it's easier to maintain and add more entries. I'll leave this decision up to others.
 * If anyone objects to the change, feel free to revert. But I have to say that IMO this change really helps this article's chances of meeting WP guidelines. HumbleGod 07:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and make sure to only use counts from the Family Media Guide, or another reliable source should one come along (i.e.- allow absolutely no original research). EWS23  (Leave me a message!) 07:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per previous nomination and the fact that a cleanup of the article was already discussed and planned on the Talk page. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep...again, sigh! Considering this article has survived several AfDs, and is of better quality and more verifiable now than it has been previously, isn't it time to give this deletion campaign a rest? --Canley 11:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - all entries not cited from reliable sources must be removed, however. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Exactly that has been done in the last two days and was already planned prior to this AfD as you can see on the articles' talk page. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong DeleteWhat is that page for?. It is better to delete it. --SkyWalker 23:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Extreme Fvcking Keep-per reasons stated by other users above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FireSpike (talk • contribs) 13 July 2006
 * Keep - like other 'lists of trivia', they are interesting and not detrimental to the encyclopedia. Joffeloff 15:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep-poor taste and I would say it still needs some clean up but it doesn't merit a delete. Agne27 05:45, 15 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.