Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" (5th 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. Discounting the single-purpose account comments, and those based on WP:USEFUL arguments, there seems to be a consensus to keep. As noted, many lists have cut-off points for inclusion that are fairly arbitrary (see this featured list, for instance), and in itself this is not a reason for deletion (although the cut-off point will preferably have been chosen by consensus). It is verified and, as PeregrineFisher explains below, compiling a sourced list is not original research. Finally, as argued by Josiah Rowe, external sources have seen fit to compile lists, which indicates a level of notability. Trebor 18:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - this article has been nominated for deletion several times previously. All the previous AFDs are linked on the article's talk page. Having looked over the previous AFDs, many of the "keep"s strike me as variations of WP:ILIKEIT. First, the article uses an arbitrary standard of inclusion, that being 100 or more uses of the term. There is nothing inherently more notable about films that use the word 100 times than one with 50 or 75 or 99 uses. There is no context or sourced analysis offered in the article explaining why 100 or more uses of the word "fuck" in a film is significant either within the works of fiction or in the real world. Otto4711 03:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Further comment - if you see this nomination and your inclination is to !vote "keep" based solely on the fact that it has been nominated previously, please consider that consensus can change and please review the previous AFDs and evaluate the quality of the arguments. Otto4711 03:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 23:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 23:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agree with the nom. Further, it's not clear why we should have a list for "fuck" and not "shit" or any of a number of one's 'favorite' racial, religious, or ethnic slurs.  Maybe merge to Motion_Picture_Association_of_America_film_rating_system?  - 71.232.29.141 03:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I totally agree with 71.232.29.141 that we should have one for shit also. But seriously, this is a solid piece of original research that should be considered one of the best OR articles on wikipedia.  --Selket Talk 04:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment it is not original research, please read the article before participating in an AfD debate (citations and sources are clearly noted within the article). Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep Someone has done their home work here... and a lot has went into it It isn't thoughtless or offensive it's just FACT KEEP! --User:ElwoodsbrotherJake (talk)
 * Keep This list is actually useful because it lists data like counts.Dacium 06:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I don't think the criteria is arbitary ("fuck" is commonly accepted as the strongest English curse), and unlike the other plethora of film lists up for deletion, this list is totally objective and maintainable. However, merely stating that a film uses "fuck" a lot is not enough; you need sources to back that up. JuJube 07:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Certain movie's F-word counts have frequently been quoted in the media as well, so this exists as a "subject" outside of this article. Croxley 07:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom, page is well put together, but not in scope of an encyclopedia. Booshakla 07:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Usefull information. --Djsasso 16:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am torn - I don't think the article should be kept on the basis of "I like it." However, it is sourced, factual, well put-together, and in good shape as an article.  The question then becomes, is it notable?  Certainly many people treat this word as a sort of totem and make a big deal out of its use in pop culture, and the Family Media Guide cares enough to actually document its usage in great detail.  I lean toward keeping. - Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 17:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Hmm. It's far better sourced and more strictly defined than most of these "List of movies" articles showing up, so it has that in its favor.  However I have to question the usefuless of such an article in an encyclopedia.  In spite of the sourcing and rigorous definition it still smacks of arbitrary inclusion rules as well as being nothing more than a list of loosely related topics - those movies really have little in common other than prolific use of the word.  Perhaps the top few could warrant a section on the fuck article (if it isn't already, I've not looked).  But I have to concur with Otto4711 and agree with deletion. Arkyan 18:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Otto4711. Tumbleweedtumbles 18:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC) — Tumbleweedtumbles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete The article on the word fuck discusses its significance quite well. The article on movies that make use of the word fuck... well, the link speaks for itself. GassyGuy 19:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see the objections, but the page is well referenced and non-arbitrary (as JuJube indicates).  Put it this way: if a cultural phenomenon is notable enough to have been satirized as far back as 1982 (see our article on Life, the Universe and Everything), it's notable enough to have a Wikipedia article.  In other words: Keep, per Douglas Adams. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is arbitrary, because it sets a standard for inclusion with no explanation. Only films with 100 or more uses may be included and the article makes no case for why 100 uses of the word "fuck" is notable enough for inclusion while a film with even one less usage is not. Otto4711 04:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, that particular criterion is arbitrary — but that's not an argument for deletion, it's an argument for reconsidering the criterion within the article. The main issue is whether "films that use the word 'fuck' a lot" are noteworthy as a category, and the answer — as indicated by the cited sources in the article — is yes.  It's true that 100 uses is an arbitrary line — you could just as easily list the "100 films that use the word 'fuck' most frequently" or something — but the core concept is one that's not arbitrary and even, dare I say it, encyclopedic. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * While I disagree with your conclusion, even if the arbitrariness of inclusion based on the number of uses were not an issue, the article still lacks sourced analysis explaining why the use of the word a great many times is significant and it still amounts to a WP:NOT tying together films which have no thematic similarity and have nothing in common other than having the word "fuck" in them a lot. What themes do Martin Lawrence Live: Runteldat and Hoffa and Clerks II and Boys Don't Cry, to choose four films off the list, share in common with each other? Do they have any commonality at all other than the word? This list is no different than List of films with the word The in the title or List of films that have blue things in them. Otto4711 05:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's substantially different — because reliable external sources have categorized films by the frequency of their use of the word "fuck". If the article were not sourced, or if the sources were not reliable, your argument might hold water. But the fact that the Family Media Guide and Screen It! Entertainment Reviews have chosen to record this data indicates that it is a meaningful criterion. If there were a noteworthy and reliable index of films with the word "The" in the title, there would be an argument for having Wikipedia articles on those topics as well. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Lugnuts 20:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This is nothing like the other "List of films" that have been AfD'd today.  It is well-referenced and non-arbitrary (per JuJube).  Also, WP:OR has no role in this article: all of the information is verified and taken from essentially 2-4 sources.  -- Black Falcon 21:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a notable topic and well put-together list. --Aude (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * strong keep Some time back I was curious and looked this up (just watched Reservoir Dogs or something)... anyway I found the article very informative. Not only does it have references it discusses reliability. Potatoswatter 22:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it might not seem like it from the article title, but the article is well organized, annotated, sourced, and has a well-defined (non-arbitrary) scope.-- danntm T C 22:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to harp on this, but can you explain how limiting the article to films that use the word 100 times or more is not arbitrary? Otto4711 04:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is arbitrary, it isn't very arbitrary, and limiting it to 100 uses within a film is probably based on what can be verified (that is, when it is enough times to make WP:N sources count and document the number of uses). I'd rather think that NOT having any lower limit would be FAR more likely to run afoul of Wikipedia policy (because then it could be argued that the list could keep growing forever and could potentially hold thousands of films with little in common). Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As for notability: notability on Wikipedia is established by what external reliable sources say. So, yes, if a reliable source counted ceiling tiles or the word "sailboat" in films, that might make it notable for Wikipedia's purposes. This seems absurd, but that's because our culture considers ceiling tiles and the word "sailboat" much less notable than the word "fuck" in the context of films. The MPAA doesn't rate films based on the number of ceiling tiles or the word "sailboat", but the use of the word "fuck" is one of their criteria for film ratings. In part because of that criterion, reliable external sources have taken to tallying up the frequency of its use. If it were not notable, the "bean-counting websites" would not exist. Q.E.D. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC) In the context of a list, the question is not "Have notable external sources written essays about why this is important?", but "Have notable external sources catalogued this information?" If we were discussing a hypothetical article on profanity in film, you would be correct in calling for sources analyzing the cultural context. But since this is merely a list, all that is needed to establish notability is the existence of reliable external sources cataloguing the data. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think it's a bit hypocritical for the Wikipedia community to keep a list of movies that use the F-word, while deleting other movie lists (movies that involve guessing a password, movies that feature an amputee, and so on) If this article is somehow worthy because it's well organized, then triviality has nothing to do with it, and the other articles should stay. I don't personally see how the F-word as the basis for maintaining a movie list is any less arbitrary than the others. This lack of consistency is confusing to new editors. MoodyGroove 03:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * Keep. -- Stbalbach 04:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Robert Brockway 05:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not my favorite list of course, but it is well-sourced and I have referenced to it several times in the past. --Nehrams2020 05:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, as per JuJube. Hoverfish Talk 08:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * STRONG DELETE. How is this of any importance? Let's start another list where we count how many times they say the word "lovely" and another one where we count how many times they use the bathroom. — 24.90.239.153 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This topic has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published sources and therefore passes WP:Notability. I assume the same is not true of "lovely" or "bathroom". -- Black Falcon 23:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please post some links to the sources that explain what the listed films have in common other than the repeated use of the word "fuck" and also some links to the sources which provide analysis as to why the presence of the word "fuck" 100 times in a film has significance either within the film or in the real world, while the presence of the word "fuck" 99 times in a film hasn't. Otto4711 02:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Who says that the subjects of lists need to have two thing in common? What these films have in common is that they use the word fuck a very large number of times. As for the number 100, it is arbitrary. So? I'm sure for many, many lists we've established arbitrary limits (see List of masts). That doesn't seem like a reason for deletion. --Daniel Olsen 03:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Who says? Wikipedia policy says that Wikipedia is not for lists of loosely associated topics. If the only point of commonality between the items on this list are that they have people saying "fuck" a lot, the items on the list are too loosely associated. Otto4711 14:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me summarize your argument: (1) "a high frequency of 'fuck' is a loose association" (assumption); (2) WP excludes loosely-associated lists (policy); (3) therefore a list of films with a high frequency of 'fuck' should be excluded (conclusion). That's a very nice argument iff you can support the first assumption, which I'm pretty sure WP policy says nothing about.  That assumption is you personal opinion and it does no good to keep repeating it over and over again without providing an explanation that justifies the claim that that is indeed a loose association.  -- Black Falcon 19:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How exactly else would "loose association" be defined if not as a grouping of things with little or nothing in common? Otto4711 22:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That is the exact definition of "loose association". But what I'm disputing is your assumption that having a high frequency of a certain word use is equivalent to having "little or nothing in common".  That's still an assumption, which you have not justified.  Also note please that there is a lot more similarity between the top 10 films on thist list than between the top 10 on this list and Cinderella or The Little Mermaid.  -- Black Falcon 23:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Where is your rebuttal of the presumption? "No it isn't" is not an argument anywhere outside a Monty Python sketch. As for the top ten films having more in common with each other than with Disney flicks, that's a nonsense argument. The question is not whether the films more closely resemble each other than they do other films. The question is whether they are closely associated enough amongst themselves. And the top ten films are a documentary about the word "fuck," a mockumentary about two beer-drinking headbangers, a drama about an abusive husband, a Mafia crime drama, a fictionalized account of a drug-dealing kidnapper, an adaptation of an Iraqi marine's memoir, a comedy about a pair of hooligan twins, the story of the Son of Sam killings, a Martin Lawrence concert film and the true story of a mob informer. Of those films, exactly two of them share any commonality of theme or plot with each other. Where exactly is the vast reach of commonality that connects these films outside the word "fuck"? Otto4711 01:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My rebuttal is this: Why do they need to share anything else? There's plenty of published sources on that alone.  We should, as WP editors, try to avoid (I realize that sometimes it's inevitable and/or necessary) setting our own (subjective) standards on such things as the strength of association or notability.  There are articles about the usage of the word 'fuck' in film, sources whose sole purpose is to document the frequency of usage of various "profane" words  or who otherwise gather/present such information --although why "God", "Jesus", and "Christ" are included as profane words by "http://www.familymediaguide.com" is beyond me.  -- Black Falcon 02:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do they need to share anything else? Because things that are not in loose association with each other tend to have more than one point of commonality. As for avoiding subjective standards, I agree that's a good thing. Which is why the entirely arbitrary and subjective standard set by this article (100 or more "fuck"s for inclusion) are yet one more insurmountable problem with the article. As for there existing websites and organizations that bean-count dirty words, I have not disputed that such sites exist. The still unanswered point is that within the article there is no sourced analysis. Counting up the number of a specific word in a movie is not sourced analysis. I've asked any number of times for the sourced analysis of the multiple use of the word "fuck" in a movie and you have yet to provide any. Are you conceding that there isn't any? Are you ignoring this repeated request? Is there something else going on? Where is the sourced analysis? Otto4711 03:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Otto, if reliable sources external to Wikipedia indicate that a single criterion is noteworthy, then it's sufficiently noteworthy for our purposes. Just because there is no sourced analysis of that criterion's significance does not mean that the criterion is arbitrary. If sourced analysis of why a statistic is important were a requirement for all Wikipedia lists, we'd have to delete every page in Category:Sports-related lists. There's no sourced analysis of why the List of National Football League quarterbacks who have thrown at least 100 career touchdowns is a noteworthy criterion for quarterbacks, but that page provides a link to an almanac site that categorizes quarterbacks in that manner. Similarly, this page has links to organizations that categorize films by the frequency of use of the word "fuck". It may seem arbitrary to you, but the existence of the reliable external sources proves that it's not arbitrary by the standards set by Wikipedia. It might be nice if we had some analysis of why a particular criterion is noteworthy, but the absence of that analysis is not a sufficient justification for deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sports-related lists are not about works of fiction, therefore fall under different guidelines, therefore are not germane to this discussion. And I dispute the notion that because a bean-counting website or two tots up the raw number of f-bombs in a film that makes it notable for our purposes. If a website totaled up the number of ceiling tiles that appeared in a bunch of films, would that confer notability? If it totaled up the number of paper clips in a chain in a bunch of films, would that conver notability? If it totalled up the number of times the word "blue" or "sailboat" or "President Bush" appeared in a film, would that confer notability? No. Otto4711 20:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said elsewhere, I don't see any evidence that the writers of WP:FICT were thinking about almanac-style lists when they called for "sourced analysis". Also, please notice that some of the films on this list, including the #1 entry, are documentaries, not works of fiction, making your attempt at applying WP:FICT even more absurd.
 * Hmm. So counting "sailboats" or "President Bushes" don't get counted because our culture (and which culture is that, exactly? The phrase "Our culture" seems to have systemic bias issues) doesn't consider it the same as "fuck." Yet the lack of cultural context in the article is OK? That seems...flawed as an argument somehow. And, bean counting websites count the word because it's notable, but notability is established by the existence of the bean-counting websites? Circular logic. Otto4711 18:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's not circular. The beginning is the culture-at-large (and since we're talking about English-language films, it's not systemic bias for us to speak of the common culture of Anglophone nations).  As individuals at Wikipedia we cannot and should not attempt to determine what is and is not notable by merely using our own judgments.  We can only judge notability based on external criteria, the most important of which is whether notable external sources have written on the subject.  Notability flows from the culture (primary source) to external sources (secondary sources) to Wikipedia (tertiary source).  POV problems arise when we attempt to judge the culture-at-large directly, unmediated by secondary sources.  But if the secondary sources exist and are considered reliable by a consensus of Wikipedians, then they may be interpreted as a reasonable measure of the culture-at-large.
 * Otto, technically (and I do realize that my noting this may be a sign of OCD), they do have another similarity: they are all films (unlike your bananas and yellow balls example in the List of films by gory death AfD). Where is the sourced analysis?  Simple, it's not there.  This is not a concession on my part, as I never asserted that there was any sourced analysis.  But consider this.  First, lack of analysis is not an inherent flaw of this article, but rather an editing issue.  Second, it's a list.  How much "sourced analysis" should we really expect?  Any such analysis belongs in a main Profanity in film article (it unforuntately doesn't exist yet).  -- Black Falcon 05:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Otto4711, why on earth would I do that? This is not a list of films that have things in common other than the repeated use of the word "fuck".  It's a list of films that have precisely that in common!  As for 99 vs. 100, that's a content dispute better suited to the talk page.  -- Black Falcon 03:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why on earth would you source a Wikipedia article? Um, because Wikipedia articles about fiction are supposed to provide sourced analysis and not just plot points? Otto4711 14:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not misrepresent (or misunderstand if it was in good faith) my words. I didn't question the need to source the article.  I questioned the need to source it with irrelevant sources that establish additional and unrelated commonalities between the films.  The current sources already establish the relevant association: the frequency of 'fucks'.  -- Black Falcon 19:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And I am not suggesting that these films are not associated by the high frequency of the word "fuck." I am not saying that the films are not associated, I am saying that the association is so small as to be a "loose association" under WP:NOT. I am saying that in the absence of sourced third-party analysis attesting to the significance of the word fuck in the context either of the films, the films in relation to each other or the real world the list is untenable. I have asked a number of times how various films on this list are rendered similar by the repeated "fuck"s. No answer to that question. I've offered examples of several other potential lists of films and of other objects which would not stand under Wikipedia guidelines and asked how this list differs from those. No answer. I've asked for a source which offers analysis of the repetition of the word within the films, between the films or in the real world. None has been offered beyond bean-counting profanity watchdog sites who count words but don't analyze them. Otto4711 22:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How they've been "rendered similar by the repeated 'fuck's"? That itself is one similarity!  Also, as I just noted above, these films are much more similar to each other than any one of them is to, for instance, Beauty and the Beast or Cinderella (unless they've put out a new version that I'm unaware of).  How could this be significant to anyone?  How about considering it in the context of the increasing commonality/acceptance of profanity on televsion?  Given that there are multiple sources which document this, I don't see what the problem is in terms of policy.  Yes, you view this as a "loose" association.  Others (including those published sources which are used in the article) do not.  -- Black Falcon 23:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, let's consider the topic in terms of the increasing commonality and acceptance of profanity on television. What does the article say about the number of times the word fuck is in a theatrical film and the increasing commonality and acceptance of profanity on television... Huh. The article doesn't seem to say anything about the use of the word fuck in theatrical films and the increasing commonality and acceptance of profanity on television! In fact, the article doesn't say anything at all about the use of the word "fuck" anywhere, other than listing off times that it happens. Well, you know, all sorts of things happen. They happen even more frequently than "fuck" does in a film and there aren't Wikipedia articles about them. Which, even if you somehow can't grasp number of "fuck"s in a film is a loose association, the article, as I have noted a number of times with no rebuttal, is completely free of any context as to why "fuck" in a film is important. Otto4711 01:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it doesn't say anything now. But the last time I checked, there is no deadline to finishing Wikipedia (if such a thing is indeed possible). By the way, WP:TIND is an essay and not an authorative policy or guideline, so it is an opinion that is not necessarily supported by consensus.  There's no need to question my ability to process this discussion.  I can perfectly well understand the rationale behind the notion that the number of 'fuck's in a film is a loose association.  Yet despite the fact that I understand your argument (and even see it as having merit), I can also disagree with it, as I believe it to be inapplicable in this case (please see my reply above regarding the proliferation of published materials).  -- Black Falcon 02:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That Wikipedia might never be finished is not an excuse for retaining articles which do not meet Wikipedia policies or guidelines. It remains my contention that this article violates the policy of WP:NOT and the refutation of that has amounted to "nuh uh!" I have contended that the article fails the guideline of WP:NPOV because of setting the arbitrary standard of "100 uses can be included but 99 can't" and the response has to an extent been an admission that yes, the inclusion criteria is arbitrary. I have contended that the article fails the guideline of WP:FICT because it does not include real-world context and sourced analysis and the response has been to offer up google searches and links to sites which do not offer real-world context or sourced analysis. Otto4711 03:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with your first sentence, but find it irrelevant in this case. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean my refutation is a "nuh uh!" (please see WP:TRUTH).  My refutation of your charge of violating WP:NOT has been to demand proof that this constitutes a "loose association", which you have not furnished to my satisfaction (I ask again: how does a list whose subject has been extensively covered in outside sources and which 2 commonalities--films and frequency of 'fuck's--qualify as "loose association"?).  As for WP:NPOV, huh??  Exactly what is the POV that is being advanced?  Pro-100ism vs. Anti-99ism?  The application of NPOV, which is about "representing fairly and without bias all significant views", makes absolutely no sense.  Lastly, regarding WP:FICT.  I read through the guideline and it does not seem to say anything that would be applicable in this case.  This article does not deal with "Major characters", "Minor characters", or "Plot summaries".  In addiiton, while the plot of the films is fictional and the characters are fictional (usually), the frequency of the use of a word in the dialogue (a published text) is not factual.  -- Black Falcon 05:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The POV that's being advanced is that 100 uses of the word is significant while fewer uses of the word is not. There is no rational basis for that assertion (unless you can point to some reliable source that supports the notion that triple digits is significant but double digits isn't). And your constant "proveitproveitproveit" which in my opinion (which under the humorous essay WP:TRUTH is every bit as true as yours) amounts to little more than "nuh uh." I have explained by analogy. I have explained that the films share no elements of plot, style or setting in the majority of cases. I have shown that these items have nothing in common other than the presence of a word (and yes, that they are films, which, duh, it's a list of films). I'm at a loss as to how much looser an association between these items can possibly be.
 * I agree with Black Falcon — there's nothing at WP:FICT that applies to an almanac-style list of this type. Also, Otto's repitition of "100 is an arbitrary number" is becoming tiresome — the same could be said of any almanac-style list with an arbitrary cut-off point, such as List of highest-grossing films (why the top 50?) or List of National Football League quarterbacks who have thrown at least 100 career touchdowns (it's right there in the title).  This is a red herring which has nothing to do with the question of a list's worthiness for inclusion in Wikipedia.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It may very well be true that other almanac-style lists have arbitrary inclusion standards. Pointing to one article as justification for another, also known as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, is not particularly compelling, no matter how tiresome your and others' repeated use of the excuse is used. Otto4711 18:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that the redirect WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is being considered for deletion, as needlessly uncivil. My point in mentioning the sports-related lists was not to say "other crap articles exist", but to indicate that an arbitrary cut-off point is common for almanac-style lists, and not in and of itself an argument for deletion.  Please also note that your examples of hypothetical lists of films with ceiling tiles or the word "sailboat" could also be denigrated as examples of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions — the sword cuts both ways. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Otto. It's not the frequency of use but the context that determines the meaning of the F-word. There's a big difference between a soldier getting a finger shot off, a sexual predator telling a little girl what he's going to do to her, and a comedian throwing a word in for effect, that the mere act of counting the number of times the word is used without regard for the context is the very definition of trivial. MoodyGroove 04:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * Delete. What's next List of Movies that use the word faggot? Information has no possible use other than stupid trivia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.134.118.184 (talk) 06:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Sockpuppet...I mean fuck. Interesting how 2 of the "delete" voters here have never made an edit on WIkipedia before voting in this afd, and another "delete" voter's only contributions have been on this and a few other afd votes. What's going on? 172.189.209.223 06:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for the same reasons I articulated in the last go-round on this one. Consensus can change, I can change my mind. It seems not to have, and I certainly haven't. Carlossuarez46 06:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The notability of the word "fuck" in films is supported by Google Books and Scholar. Not all these results have to do with the number of times the word has been said, but if you search variant terms long enough you should find enough to your liking. The lower bound of the list being arbitrary is irrelevant to this discussion, and applies to all top/most lists in general. The concern of the article is the most frequent uses, i.e. the top of the list, not the bottom, and the cut-off point is a consequence that is dealt with by consensus. Pomte 09:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the notability of the word "fuck", and how many times "fuck" is said in films. I don't see any valid reasons from those whose opinion is delete, and we must remember that Wiki ain't paper, no reason why we can't have those nice little notable list. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No one appears to be arguing that the word "fuck" is not of cultural significance. The question that I keep asking, and which no one seems able to answer, is regarding the cultural significance of the use of the word "fuck" 100 or more times in a movie. Otto4711 19:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this list is useful, well-cited, extremely well-written and of cultural significance. So far, I haven't seen any reasons given to delete it that make sense according to Wikipedia policy as I understand it. Please make sure that you actually read the article before voting, I rather suspect that a number of the "delete" votes here are basing their opinions on the name of the article alone, which does sound a bit iffy until you actually read the article. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If the list is of such cultural significance, then where is the sourced analysis within the article that explains its cultural significance? Surely for a list of such weighty cultural importance, it should be simplicity itself to point to a sourced analysis that explains why it's important that such-and-such movie used the word "fuck" eleventy-seven times, but the article is curiously lacking.
 * Keep - It meets WP:LIST:
 * Information - lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists
 * Navigation - Lists can be used as a table of contents, or if the user is browsing without a specific research goal in mind - Peregrine Fisher 19:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:LIST is a guideline as to the form and function of lists. Lists that do not conform to policy are not saved by conforming to guidelines. Otto4711 19:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but how has it so far been established that the list "does not conform to policy"? That's a rhetorical question, by the way.  -- Black Falcon 19:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, so far I've offered examples of films from the list that have no relation to each other besides using the word a lot and there's been no refutation of it other than your saying "that doesn't prove anything" without offering up the slightest counter-argument. I've offered several examples of lists both concerning films and things outside of films which are as loose of an association as this list is and there's been no refutation of that at all. Otto4711 22:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You have reiterated your opinion that the frequency of the word's usage is a "loose" association without actually justifying this opinion. Your statements assume a priori that this is a loose association, whereas what they should do is reach this conclusion (which justifies deletion) based on an initial set of premises.  -- Black Falcon 23:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The premise is, look at the articles for the films. Look at the plots, the themes, the settings. Do they share anything in common outside the word "fuck"? Your own top ten challenge shows exactly how loose the association is. Of the top ten films on the list, exactly two of them share any measure of plot, setting or theme, Goodfellas and Casino. None of the others bear any resemblance to those films or to each other. The films are the premise and the conclusion is they are not related to each other. Otto4711 01:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I ask again: why do they need to share anything besides the frequent of use the word 'fuck'? There is plenty of published material on that narrow subject alone.  Please see my response above.  Also, for the sake of brevity, I suggest we confine any further comments to one place as it's somewhat pointless to repeat similar points in three separate places in the article (and also out of consideration for the closing admin). -- Black Falcon 02:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And I answer again, because the fact that the films have the word "fuck" in them a lot tells us nothing about the films, their relationship to each other, the use of the word "fuck" in films, or the real world. Otto4711 03:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See my response above. -- Black Falcon 05:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Of course this word is more notable than words such as "bathroom" or even "shit" given its controversial status and its unofficial classification as one of the worst swear words out there. Also, I'm constantly hearing about how "blank film has the most f-words ever" in the media and its useful to have an actual list to reference these claims. Furthermore, this list is much better organized and sourced then the majority of movie-related lists on Wikipedia. As for notability, heck, look at the number of people who have responded to this AFD already.-- Grandpafootsoldier 19:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:USEFUL is not a valid criterion for keeping. The number of people who respond to an AFD has no bearing on the notability of the subject. Otto4711 20:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you look on the web there are a lot independant sources that discuss the frequency of the word being used in films, for instance this. This demonstrates notability. - Peregrine Fisher 20:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, notability is not the issue here. And the frequency of a word in a film does not tell us anything about the use of the word in the film, or the context of the usage in the film, or the meaning of the use of the word in the world outside the film. Otto4711 22:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not in the scope of this article, and is covered by fuck. Pomte 03:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:AADD (in which WP:USEFUL is contained) is an essay only. Thus, it can make no authoritative judgments on the validity or lack thereof of arguments for deletion.  For the opposite to WP:AADD, please see WP:BASH.  -- Black Falcon 20:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:USEFUL is an essay. It's an essay that explains that arguing for keeping an article on the basis of its being "useful" is generally looked upon as unpersuasive. Otto4711 22:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To quote from it directly, "it simply reflects some opinions of its authors". I am not opposed to the principles enunciated in WP:AADD nor do I oppose its use in AFD discussions.  However, I do object to a claim that an essay can make authoritative judgments on the validity (or lack thereof) of certain actions or arguments.  It's one thing to note that "useful" arguments are "generally looked upon as unpersuasive", but it's another to say that "useful" arguments are just not valid.  -- Black Falcon 23:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. WTF, what's next, List of films that most frequently use the word "baby"? -- Howard  the   Duck  02:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe in nine months... Otto4711 04:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep.. articles should not be deleted simply because someone finds the information offensive. i can't raise any more valid points than several of the "keep" ones above... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Triplej2676 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete this broad, useless category that requires POV to define "frequently". Who gets to define "most frequently"? Why 100 of all numbers? What's the point? Doczilla 06:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Everyone knows what "most frequently" means as it pertains to the top film in the list. Now extend the list, and these are obviously the films that most frequently use "fuck". "Most frequently" has nothing to do with the cut-off number, which is 100 in this case, because anyone would rightly say that these are the films that most frequently use "fuck". The cut-off number does require POV established by consensus, but it's not a problem with this particular list; it's a problem inherent in all unbounded lists in general. Would you question what "tallest" means in List of tallest buildings and structures in the world? Pomte 07:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. As someone who watches and recommends movies to other people, the use of the word "fuck" seems to have gotten into ridiculous levels. I find this list extremely useful as a tool to inform people who would like to know about a certain movie. I can explain to them that this movie has X number times using the term and let them have a good reason to see or not see this movie. I frequently hear about how one movie has the most f words in it but this list does well with sources to actually back it up. I think Otto is just a little too hardcore here and needs to take a vacation. I also like it as a monument to the illiteracy of Hollywood screenwriters these days.  -- A S Williams
 * Keep. It's an entertaining and informative list.  Those ninnies and prudes who would be offended by it need not look at it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.45.224.217 (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Strong Keep. If you are a movie-lover, ALL information about movies are welcome. And lists like that are very amusing AND informative to read. In a democratic forum all sort of information should be present, even the ones that does´nt follow the common path. Let alone that the info is correct.84.216.95.139 21:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's an entertaining and informative list.
 * Keep. This article kicks ass. Doppelganger  E  02:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although the connection may be loose in this case, I believe it is trumped by it having had multiple coverage. Use of the word in film is a subject which is often written about, as the references would indicate. There is also no small controversy, as moral-religious groups tend also to make a big brouhaha about this. However, to eliminate cultural bias in this article, it could/should be widened to use of similar expletives in other languages. Ohconfucius 03:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The f-word is so important in English-language popular culture (and even, increasingly in non-English languages) that its intersection with the film industry is indeed f***ing notable. --Leifern 14:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Its amusing. sikander 06:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete fun trivia, but anyone looking for this can go somewhere other than wikipedia Usedup 07:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes I am biased, as I've edited the article a lot, and yes its amusing (and there is nothing wrong with that). But more importantly:
 * Obviously, the word fuck is different from random other words (including other swearing and sexual slang), given the controversy that surrounds it.
 * Excessive usage of the word fuck in specific movies is often mentioned in reviews/reports, showing the notability of the subject.
 * A clearly defined cut-off (100 in this case) narrows the scope of the article, making it easier to maintain and sets it apart from what are often called "indiscriminate lists". As also explained above, many lists naming the top XXXX of something on Wikipedia use an arbitrary cut-off. This is not original research, but only a way to keep the maintenance and size of such articles under control.
 * The main argument in all previous AfDs was sourcing. It is properly sourced now for a long time, making all information verifiable.
 * Articles likes this are exactly what makes Wikipedia different from other encyclopedias (NOT:PAPER).
 * So in summary, the article does NOT violate WP:A, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:LIST or WP:CLS. Therefore, I do not see the grounds for deletion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I had to use this page as jumping off point to find some more information and found it quite valuable.  The loss of this page would be detrimental to wikipedia as a whole.  68.103.207.65 16:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. There have been some well-reasoned delete votes and almost no compelling reason to keep.  The vast majority of keep votes are completely insubstantial.  That being said, my reason to delete is that this violates WP:OR.  The data is sourced, but there is no source for compiling the data in this manner and making this conclusion about it - that makes it original research and it is prohibited.  You need to find reliable sources that compile and analyze the usage of the word "fuck" in films, its effects, and even more important, why the word "fuck" is worth studying over others at this particular threshold.  Otherwise, it is pure WP:OR. --Mus Musculus 19:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Compiling a sourced list is not OR. This page does not introduce any theories, define new terms, introduce any arguments, or introduce an analysis or synthesis of published facts, opinions, or arguments in a way that advances a position. - Peregrine Fisher 20:49, 28 February 2007 (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.