Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" (10th 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 was   keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"

 * – ( View AfD View log )

AfDs for this article:  This is complete fucking unencyclopedic content. I think it's pretty clear that when you have such a fucking massive amount of fucking past nominations, it clearly fucking doesn't need to be on fucking Wikipedia, but rather fucking Uncyclopedia. The list might be referenced like fucking crazy, but that doesn't justify that this controversial list should exist. Fucking kill it with fire.    Takeo   22:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Deletion review/Log/2008 February 4
 * Deletion review/Log/2009 April 16


 * Speedy keep per section 2 subsection 3 of the speedy keep guidelines. The previous nomation was made on almost the same same grounds and was soundly rejected. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fucking kill it with fire, I agree. Completely trivial stuff. Non-encyclopedic. Diego Grez (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Fucking interesting, actually. I will note that the sourcing here is better than 99.967% of the lists on Wikipedia and that the documentary on the subject (Fuck) more or less validates the topic as worthy of study and discourse. I can appreciate why many people would want to delete this on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds. Ultimately, this would seem to pass muster as a Wikipedia list, however. Carrite (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep-- per Carrite. --E♴ (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, ffs.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- Reach Out to the Truth 05:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and close as the nominator has failed to cite a single policy as to why this article should be deleted.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid AfD argument. --Cyber cobra (talk) 08:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep for the eleventh time, an encyclopedic and sourced (212 at last count) list that meets the criteria of MOS:LIST and WP:LISTPURP. No matter if one likes the list topic or not, the topic iitself has received wide attention and commentary in numerous reliable sources for many years. So like it or not, the topic is and remains worthy or note. As for its usage in film and culture being controversial? WP:NOTCENSORED.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to see how this is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT case.    Takeo   12:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful to cite policies and guidelines to back your argument as to why the list should be deleted. For example, WP:NOTDIR says Wikipedia does not consist of "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". You could also argue that the list does not meet anything on WP:LISTPURP. Another possibility is WP:SYNTH, where we see family websites cited to have a film qualify for the list, despite no actual coverage of the film as one that frequently uses the word. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment See also WP:LAME. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think it's really, really stupid to care about the number of times the word "fuck" is used in a movie. But apparently, some significant enough portion of the population gets their knickers in a knot over it to the point of counting up the "fuck" usage as part of movie screening.  As such, the list topic is valid.  Criteria for items in the list are made clear, and list entries are cited to reliable sources.  -- Whpq (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - For fuck's sake, after 9 nominations and 2 deletion reviews I think we can safely say that the consensus is to keep. Although this AfD is pretty fucking amusing, I don't think we have to make it an annual event. Use WP:N, IAR, whatever the fuck we want to justify it, but the discussion on this one has gone on far too long. --Danger (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Add this discussion to List of AFDs that most frequently use the word "fuck" in a civil manner.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - not because of the "fuck" part, but because of the "most frequently" part. 100 uses is an arbitrary threshold - why not 99 or 101? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The question of a reasonable cut-off point being 100 has been discussed in many of the previous AFDs. So rather than arbitrary, the number had been agreed upon through earlier consensus. A revised cut-off point might merit discussion on the article's talk page.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have just looked through several of the past AfDs, and I see that, while my point has indeed been raised before, it hasn't been properly answered. Why indeed should exactly 100 uses be the standard for inclusion? If there is a good answer to that, I missed it, and I don't think "We've just decided to use that standard" is a proper answer. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There are inumerable studies and books and even films specifically concerning the use or over-use of the word in films, so the list topic is demonstrably worthy of note in a encyclopdia that prides itself on being not censored. So pardon, but I would think your concern might be more a matter of a consensus of editors agreeing on a set number (100? 150? 200?) that would best define our own use of "frequently" for the purpose of determining inclusion (or not) in the list, and less a reason to delete a list on a notable topic simply because the "question hasn't been properly answered."  There are thousands of book results showing the term and its usage in film has been studied and discussed ad-infinitum.  Fuck: word taboo and protecting our First Amendment liberties by Christopher M. Fairman is an example.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, all your reply amounts to is saying, in effect, that an arbitrary threshold is OK. But if exactly 100 uses or more of the word "fuck" isn't what reliable sources mean when they discuss frequent uses of the word "fuck", that's a pointless answer. Unless reliable sources say that 100 uses or more is important (which I don't believe for a moment), then this list with its current criteria can't be justified that way. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In order to prevent any of them from becoming unmanageable, the various lists on Wikipedia are set with inclusion standards arrived at and agreed upon by editors and based upon the particular list and what it purports to list. And, as all the "rules" of Wikipedia are themselves determined through consensus, and not set as a ruling by an absolute power, the use of any set of criteria that must be met for inclusion in any list on any notable topic has wide precedent.  So I see your own question as being more of "who or why determined 100+ as a reasonable number for keeping the list maintainable?"   In a self-governing body that sets its own policies and guidelines, "arbitrary" is not always a bad word.  I do not see using that 100+ as a determinant for inclusion on the list as representing any one person's personal descretion nor do I see 100+ as a inclusion determinant as being random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will as its use was developed and applied over time and through discussions.  If this list were EVERY film that EVER used the word, it would be unmanagable.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That hardly answers my point - if reliable sources indicate that over-use of the word "fuck" is notable, then the right thing to do would be to have an article specifically on over-use of the word "fuck", which is not what this list is. It's a list of films that use the word "fuck" 100 times or more, which seems pointless, given that nothing in reliable sources would indicate that that specific number (or indeed any number) has some special importance. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As lists are created as editable navigation aids, and as readers may wish to have access to such information, this one is not pointless. Suitability and structure for any list is set by the guidelines at Manual of Style (lists), and as in this case set by WP:LISTPURP, WP:STAND, WP:LSC, WP:LISTNAME, and WP:SALAT.  That so much time and energy is spent by sources in counting the use of the word itself in the listed films is another deteminant of notability of the topic.  With respects, I see 100+ as a reasonable minimum to keep the list maintainable. Discussions on modifying the list's inclusion criteria to are best discussed on the article's talk page and do not require a deletion in the lack of that discussion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "as readers may wish to have access to such information, this one is not pointless" - So you think that there actually are readers who care about which films use the word "fuck" exactly 100 times or more? Why? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, as that the article has existed since 2004 and has received thousands of edits by an innumerable number of editors means that there are readers and editors who do care about such, so it does not matter that I personally might or might not... and even a simple G-search for the title brings up over 35 thousand results showing a strange fascination folks have with the topic, so I'm sure someone with the tools and time will be glad to provide a breakdown of the number of visits the article itself has had since creation. As for why folks are interested? Why are folks ever interested in anything?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's absolute nonsense. People edit articles because they exist, and (usually) because they're about a subject that they have some interest in. That doesn't mean that anyone cares about which films have exactly 100 uses or more of "fuck"! It could be that the people editing it are interested in "fuck" but that's no indication that they care about the "100 uses or more" part! And there's simply no reason to think that ordinary readers of Wikipedia care about it either, which is a good enough reason to delete the article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, newcomer or old-timer or one-edit IP, people edit articles because they have some interest in improving the topic. Indeed, I've seen many articles deleted because they had problems and NO ONE edited them... some having sat forgotten and collecting dust for years.  And though you contend that the topic cannot possibly be of any interest to readers, the sources provided in the article indicate the opposite.  But again it seems you have a greater issue with the lede's setting of 100+ uses as a criteria that allows the list to be managable.  You are welcome per WP:LISTPURP, WP:STAND, WP:LSC, WP:LISTNAME, and WP:SALAT to begin discussions to modify it.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That someone edits an article like this doesn't mean that they necessarily care which films have exactly 100 or more counts of "fuck" - it simply means that they likely care about something related to the article. I didn't say that there couldn't possibly be anyone out there who cares which films use "fuck" exactly 100 times or more - only that it's absurdly unlikely. The only people who do care about the exact number count appears to be a handful of Wikipedia editors. The problem here isn't that the 100 or more threshold is wrong it's that any specifically defined number is wrong, since, with respect, only the people voting "keep" in AfDs here actually care in the slightest, the ordinary Wikipedia readers we're trying to serve don't. And referring to half a dozen alphabet soup Wikipedia policies isn't the equivalent of providing a convincing, common sense explanation of why this article should be kept. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We have topics based upon their coverage OUTSIDE of the project, and determine their worthiness for inclusion based upon that coverage. We do not dictate what a reader might or might not wish to read.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Carrite. It's arguably not a very useful index for the films themselves, though some films certainly have a reputation based on their use of profanity, but the list topic itself is notable.  Perhaps some day this will no longer be remarkable, just as the use of "damn" in Gone with the Wind required amending the production code to permit it, but in a film today wouldn't raise an eyebrow.  But for now, the word is still relatively taboo, and its usage can mean a difference in ratings.  All of that, and the nom's deletion rationale is really just WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  postdlf (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Recommend WP:SNOW close as keep in light of the overwhelming consensus, the history of it passing AFD nine times previous, and the fact that keeping this open is now just providing a forum for a two-person shouting match (no offense). postdlf (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No offense taken by me. :)  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep To the sane mind, this is a completely trivial and pointless list. However, the topic has somehow received enough coverage to render it notable so there are no grounds for deletion. BigDom   talk  09:48, 6 March 2011 (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.