Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" (6th 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. I'd like to note that the frequently-cited WP:NOT is not, by itself, a reason to delete this article. The rule prohibits "long and sprawling lists of statistics" because they "reduce the readability and neatness of our articles", but allows "using infoboxes or tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists." No-one has argued that this article is unreadable or confusing, so WP:NOT would not seem to apply. Sandstein (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Completely unencyclopedic content. This belongs on uncyclopedia, not here. Its been nominated several times before, the links are found on the talk page. Most of the keep votes use reasoning like "This is a fun page" or "Pages like this make me smile." These are not valid reasons to keep an article around. RogueNinja talk  19:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep use of the word "fuck" in media is quite encyclopedic and generates press, controversy, and even litigation. And while this article perhaps is less "high brow" than most, it's certainly more so than all the various American Idol also-rans. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good reason to keep things. RogueNinja talk  20:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This is what I said on the talk page: "This article has useful information, but I don't think it's very good as a list, it is never going to be complete for two reasons: People have different views on what makes a film notable enough to be in the list; different sources have different numbers, so it's actually kind of pointless to have sources, but if we don't, it's OR. What I suggest doing is making an article called The word "fuck" in film which discusses the usage of the word in film and we can merge some of the info from this list." I stand by what I said, the list is not going to work but an article might. Nominator, to a certain degree I agree with you, but the word fuck is prominent in film, so either merge into Fuck, or create The word "fuck" in film.--The Dominator (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, the article is well sourced, it does not draw any conclusions (and thus does not synthesize new information). It is merely a list which does not violate any Wikipedia policy, not more than other lists, like for example World's busiest airports by passenger traffic. This is exactly what makes Wikipedia different, as the number of topics we can cover is much larger than that of other encyclopedias. Also, this article has not been nominated "several times" before. It has been nominated six times before, of which four ended in keep and two ended in no consensus. I guess it was about time for a new nomination. --Reinoutr (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It may not draw its own conclusions, but it certainly presents its own criteria: "This is a list of non-pornographic films containing at least 100 spoken uses of the word "fuck" (or one of its derivatives), ordered by the number of such uses." Unlike your example, which has a set ranking of 30 airports, the word "frequently" is unnecessarily flexible here.  Why not list 200 films?  Why not 50?  Where is the criteria set?  We, as editors, certainly should not profess to do that.  In addition, the previous AFDs are not relevant here.  Some articles eventually get deleted at their nth appearance at AFD; consensus can evolve over time, or better reasoning for deletion can be presented if it was not clear in previous attempts.  See further rationale for deletion in my recommendation below. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 21:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So why does World's busiest airports by passenger traffic choose the 30 highest ranking airports? There is no other reason than the (in some eyes) offensive topic that this article is so often nominated for deletion. --195.169.224.219 (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The article wasn't nominated because it's offensive (Wikipedia is not censored), it was nominated because it is an incomplete list with trivial information that should be incorporated into encyclopedic text rather than a list.--The Dominator (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia would not work if incompleteness was an objection to the existence of articles. This article/list deserves time to mature, just like everything else. Keep.JamesLucas (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That article chooses the 30 highest ranking airports because the sources its uses lists 30. This seems appropriate to me.  Here, however, we're just picking out our own criteria.  It's nothing to do with censorship -- I wholeheartedly support articles that cover vulgar content and only hope that they offer something encyclopedic. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 21:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   --The Dominator (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Article is well-sourced and verifiable (and amusing), but it seems to run afoul of WP:NOT. Would support merging the info to a more suitable page per Dominator. Kamek (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NOT. This article is merely a compilation of statistics that hardly reflect the relevance of the word "fuck" used in films.  The statistics is reflected even more strongly with the existence of the bar graphs.  What is the criteria for inclusion?  The article says, "This is a list of non-pornographic films containing at least 100 spoken uses of the word "fuck" (or one of its derivatives), ordered by the number of such uses."  Why doesn't pornography count?  Why is it 100?  Why isn't it 200 or 50?  In addition, there certainly are films that are known for excess profanity, but many of the ones on the list are just compiled because of their count, which may or may not have any relevance.  Films like Goodfellas and the South Park film are films whose profanity has been noticed, but many others in the list don't have that relevance.  This would qualify as an inappropriate directory per this: "...there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic."  The large, large majority of the films in this list are not famous because of the usage of this word, aside from a handful of examples.  And that handful is not substantial enough to warrant a stand-alone list.  Such films with excess profanity ought to be explored with prose commentary in an article like Profanity in film, tracing the history of vulgar language used in cinema. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 21:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Per my last comment and Erik's. An article would certainly work much better than a list, and if there isn't enough info, we can always merge into Fuck.--The Dominator (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You also mentioned merge above; are you favoring either action, or one over the other? Just asking for clarity. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 21:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm for creating a new article using a small percentage of the info here, so closer to delete than merge, I guess.--The Dominator (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a WP:NOT and WP:NOT violation. I also feel that due to the need to create (arbitrary criteria, etc.) it is a WP:SYNTH (if not WP:OR) violation as well. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  21:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. I remember Entertainment Weekly used to do counts like this on films like Glengarry Glen Ross (?), and it's kind of funny that people are watching a movie and tallying things like this.  A "'fuck' count" indeed.  Ironically, if this gets vandalized, it'll be something sweet, on the order of "The Sound of Music: zero" Mandsford (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "It is funny" is not a reason.--The Dominator (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Some people are taking this project too seriously. It appears that this has been debated numerous times in the past and the result was keep on each occasion. Nominating this again is attempting to game the system. Catchpole (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What's your reason to keep?--The Dominator (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith about the AFD process and those involved with whom you disagree. AFDs are recurring because consensus can evolve.  Also, I'm not sure why the article's failure to conform to policies and guidelines is a reason not to take this Wikipedia article seriously.  Please feel free to elaborate on your recommendation. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 22:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't want to insult anybody, but I doubt this article will ever be deleted, since so many people find it amusing, and without any reason, vote keep, as long as these people do that, this incomplete list that violates several policies will most likely stay.--The Dominator (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The AFD process is not supposed to be a voting process, so a few substantial arguments on one side could outweigh a large number of insubstantial arguments on the other side. It's a matter of providing valid counterpoints to others' points. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 23:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep&mdash;it's an encyclopedic list with a well-defined inclusion criterion. Spacepotato (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The criteria for including a film has been determined by the editors to be non-pornographic and to be in the top 100. Why not pornographic?  Why not the top 50 or the top 200?  The topic of the article was created with subjectively decided criteria synthesizing various resources to give the impression of valid backing.  There's no encyclopedic value established by any of the resources -- merely a mish-mash of figures presented in an indiscriminate and inappropriately statistical directory. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 23:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason for avoiding pornographic films is obvious.
 * Lists of superlatives must have cutoffs. The presence of such a cutoff does not make the list unencyclopedic.  See List of highest mountains, List of National Football League quarterbacks who have thrown at least 100 career touchdowns, List of the largest urban agglomerations in North America, List of major opera composers (a featured list), and so forth. Spacepotato (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. Why shouldn't a pornographic film count?  Why are we going with films where one may say, "Oh, that's unusual"?  For some films, this isn't the case, as with raunchy comedies.
 * Good point, but the examples you've provided are known for these topics. Like I've said in my recommendation to delete, many of these films are not known because of the number of f-words uttered.  The entries fail to be topical, especially considering the resources are family-concern resources in which profanity is part of their breakdown of the film, as opposed to newspapers or magazines that may solely have coverage about excess profanity in films.  There's no encyclopedic reason to provide a statistical analysis of films that have not been highlighted as ones that "most frequently use the word" 'fuck'".  There is no real-world significance or relevance to many of these entries' number of f-words uttered; in nearly all the cases, the excess profanity are not what makes the film known (with exceptions like Goodfellas and South Park). — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 00:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say why porno films aren't included is obvious, there are a few movies that are well known for swearing, South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut holds a Guinness world record, but I don't see why most of the others are more notable than pornographic films.--The Dominator (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable subject - clear issue with censorship implications etc. Spacepotato sums it up well above. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody has said anything about wanting to censor this article, so please assume good faith that there could be other reasons besides what you mistakenly perceive. In addition, what is the notable subject?  There is no real-world context provided about this list of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" -- the entries, most of which are not known for excess profanity, are compiled into a directory for statistical purposes.  It fails to provide encyclopedic value. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 00:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I meant censorship in the world with various film classifications etc. not wikipedia. Censorship and film ratings are highly controversial areas in cinema studies. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I understand what you mean now. But the list doesn't necessarily address a real-world understanding of the topic.  There are multiple films ranging from the well-known to the lesser-known, so there's no specific insight given.  I've suggested a prose article based on profanity in film as that would be a perfectly reasonable topic for Wikipedia, but here, it's just number-crunching.  The number of f-words in most of these films have no bearing on its fame, whatever it may have. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 00:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason for a list. Ask yourselves, what does this article give to people who are researching the usage of "fuck" in film? A good chuckle maybe. A prose article would add information and it would be easier to find sources, I'm sure many people wrote essays on profanity in film, finding a direct count is more difficult though. Also the English-centered, the word "fuck" doesn't exist in other languages, and translations aren't usually accurate. Also in most languages there is not one word like "fuck" that caused controversy in media.--The Dominator (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The word fuck is arguably the most interesting and controversial word in the English language and profanity in general is obviously notable. As I have suggested, a prose article seems to be the most reasonable compromise we can think of. It is very hard to assert what film is notable and what isn't. The list is obviously incomplete yet it ranks the films. The only useful information is what comes before the list, which is not that well written "use of profanity in film was always controversial" seems POV and very vague, when was the last time some critic flipped out because a film had a high "fuck" count. I suggest making an article that covers
 * A) What different profanity is used in movies, including a sub-section on "fuck".
 * B) The reception and criticisms of profanity in film
 * C) A list of notable films that are known for its excessive swearing, for example, Scarface, Pulp Fiction, South Park, Glengarry Glenn Ross or Casino


 * Keep per Cas -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 01:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody have given a good reason to prefer the list over the Profanity in film article.--The Dominator (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the list format is completely separate from that. Feel free to make that article; no-one is stopping you. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 02:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But what is the point of the list? What meaningful content does it give a researcher?--The Dominator (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A list is an extremely convenient place to get an immediate idea of the number and type of films involved. The FPM is fascinating. Many articles have both prose and lsit forks. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The list is hardly convenient because we have the chosen cut-off of 100 films. There's no true indication of the scale of films that "most frequently use the word 'fuck'".  In addition, these films are hardly signified by the number of a certain word uttered.  It still remains statistics compiled in a directory with no real-world context. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 03:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally I think that there should be a separate project like Wiktionary or Wikiquote for stats, something like "Wikistats".--The Dominator (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In reply to Erik - yes, it does have real world context, of course it does - film is part of the real world, last time I checked. And there are many many lists on Wikipedia, and they are an accepted kind of content, so, if you want, vent your opinions about lists at an appropriate forum, rather than using it as an incentive to delete one list. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 08:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but you and I are part of the real world, but we don't have our own articles. The films themselves are notable, the word fuck is notable, but a list of films using the f-word a lot is not notable because it's a mere compilation of indiscriminate statistics through editors' arbitrary criteria that do not offer the real-world context (as in sourced analysis) of films that most frequently use the word "fuck".  I am arguing for this particular list topic, not all list topics in general, and I've explained clearly that this is a synthesis of two notable subjects -- film and profanity -- in a list form that fails to establish itself as notable.  Review the sources used for the multitude of these entries; they don't specifically mention the frequency of the f-word used.  Editors compiled the bits of information together to make it look like these rankings really do exist, when in reality they established them themselves. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 13:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, looks like we disagree there - profanity has been closely linked with film ratings systems and given how it has been discussed I would be surprised if someone hasn't quantified some sort of list somewhere and (shock! horror!) it may not be online. I know people who have worked in the field of censorship. In any case, I may go and find some more commentary on this myself, but as I have a life and volunteer work in and of itself has to come after a few other things, I have no idea wehn that will happen. I'll put it on my todo list if this article survives the AfD.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Sourced, encylopedic article. Lugnuts (talk) 08:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not encyclopedic. There's no core topic at hand.  Look at the so-called sources -- they're not even part of a specific ranking, they're just family measurements that have been drawn together to give the false impression of ranking.  And like I've said, most of these films are not known for the handful of f-words uttered aside from a few, making it an inappropriate directory. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 13:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Please note that I am not proposing this deletion as not sourced, or not notable. Rather, as per WP:Deletion Policy I am saying it is "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia."  RogueNinja talk  11:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand, but I disagree. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Film as a medium of popular culture frequently uses provocating measures to attract attention or draw a character in a certain way. This is not different in other popular art forms and also for e.g. advertisement (like the fashion campaigns photographed by Oliviero Toscani). To have a special list about something like that can be quite useful, e.g. to demonstrate the use of language over time. I would have thought that 48 Hrs. is somewhere on that list, too. As for the number of 100 spoken uses: this particular limit is no real argument for or against the article itself. A new government normally receives a 100 day period from the press to settle and start working effectively. Only after that time you will find first comments about success or failure. --Einemnet (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Having a list of phone number is useful, too. However, please read WP:NOT: "There is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic."  Note the because -- the large majority of these entries do not fall in the so-called category of, "Wow, they sure do the f-word a lot."  It's a synthesis of family measurements to provide an indiscriminate list for statistical analysis. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 13:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get personal here but the way you respond to my arguments makes me think you first of all have a personal problem with the word "fuck". I know this term is provoking, and this debate is not about phone numbers. The article Fuck mentions film, but not phone numbers. --Einemnet (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the word, but my argument has been based on the false presentation of this list. Films can be noted for their excess usage of the f-word (I only say 'f-word' for the sake of being amicable here), but please review the resources used to cite the majority of the films.  They are family measurements, which do not comment on the unique aspect of the f-word being used.  For instance, looking at Nil by Mouth, it has a sentence that says, "The film ranks among those featuring the most occurrences of the word 'fuck' in a fiction movie, with 428."  Its reference is this: "At least 428 "f" words (with at least 3 used sexually, plus some similar slang terms)..."  And that is all it says.  It doesn't make the assertion that it ranks so highly among films with f-word usage.  We took that number and synthesized it into this list.  Perhaps a citation could be found reflecting that this particular film is known for excessive f-word usage, but many of the listed films rely on generic family measurements.  It's certainly not a specifically published list of films that fall under this criteria.  Hope you understand what I'm getting at. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 22:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keepish per Carlossuarez46 and others. Referenced, and is a notable phenomenon. User:Dorftrottel 13:42, January 29, 2008
 * Nobody has once said that it's not referenced or not notable, we just said it's unencyclopedic, which it undoubtedly is.--The Dominator (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then improve it. References and notablility are the only real concerns. User:Dorftrottel 15:27, January 29, 2008
 * No! references, notability, NPOV, encyclopedic content are the four main things. Now that we're at it, it's not notable as a list, as a prose article sure, but the list gives no good content.--The Dominator (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Quote: "it's unencyclopedic, which it undoubtedly is". No it is not "undoubtedly unencyclopedic". Some people here argue it is unencyclopedic, whereas others say it is encyclopedic and thus suitable for Wikipedia. That is exactly the discussion we are having. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Explain to me how it is encyclopedic, an encyclopedia gives research information. I seriously doubt that anybody is going to research how many "fucks" there are in a film, they might research profanity in film, which is a useful topic, but number of "fucks" is just trivial statistics. This article is useless for research, only useful because it is a fun page, but that isn't what Wikipedia is for.--The Dominator (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * non-NPOV is not a reason to delete. If you think a prose article would be better, I'm all with you. Just move the content to an appropriate title and rewrite it. No need to delete the material. User:Dorftrottel 16:14, January 29, 2008
 * Please read this: WP:NOT.--The Dominator (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok... always interesting. As I said, I'm all with you if you were to rewrite it as prose. Maybe The word "fuck" in the media or The word "fuck" in popular culture would be plausibly circumscribed topics? User:Dorftrottel 16:28, January 29, 2008
 * I was thinking more like The word "Fuck" in film or Profanity in film.--The Dominator (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Both sound good to me. User:Dorftrottel 16:50, January 29, 2008
 * Amending my original comment in light of Erik's very valid point, made below, that "there is no such existing ranking of f-word count. It is a compilation of family measurements that are not predisposed as one of the ranks of films that most frequently use the word 'fuck'." As per my exchange with The Dominator directly above, a new article (or maybe initially new section in fuck) about the word as used in films could be well-referenced and worthwhile — but it should be proper prose, not a made-up ranking. User:Dorftrottel 20:08, January 30, 2008
 * The current list should be deleted. User:Dorftrottel 14:07, February 2, 2008


 * Delete per well-reasoned arguments to do so. Having lists of things is indeed useful, but Wikipedia is not a directory, nor a collection of indiscriminate information. The list entries, on the whole, are not notable for their association with the word "fuck" and this article is almost entirely (well-intentioned) synthesis on the part of its creators. All the best, Steve  T • C 16:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep With some of the other lists on wiki, this one should stay. I first came across this list looking for exactly what it contained.  While I'm not using my example as a defense, it just goes to show that this is exactly the kind of information people look for on wiki.  Take the example of World's busiest airports by passenger traffic.  What this list conveys to users is just what it says.  It doesn't presume to say which airport is best or has the longest waiting time or fewest flight delays or anything other than which airport has the most passenger traffic.  Similarly, this list doesn't prove which movie is the best or worst or even filthiest, just most 'fuck'ed up.  Seeing as 'fuck' is, arguably, the most controversial and commonly accepted as the worst word utterable in the English language, it deserves a list to let people know which movies use it to get a message across by containing the word much more than most other movies.  While I agree that the number of 'fuck's in a movie does not define it, it's still no accident that these movies have such an abundance of the word.  Writers know that it has an impact on an audience and can be greatly used to help character development.  All that said, I will suggest that this list be enhanced to include trends such as directors/writers with most movies on the list and which movies have oscar nominations/awards.Chriscapitolo (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * World's busiest airports by passenger traffic copies directly from the existing rankings (which tops at 30) in its sources. Look beyond this particular article -- there is no such existing ranking of f-word count.  It is a compilation of family measurements that are not predisposed as one of the ranks of films that most frequently use the word "fuck". — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 13:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why we have suggested a prose article, nobody ever said that the word fuck in film is not notable, we just said it's unencyclopedic. Think of someone doing a research project, the number of "fucks" would be irrelevant, what would be relevant is, which movies caused controversy (ex. South Park), which actors are known for taking roles with alot of swearing (ex. Joe Pesci) or directors that make movies with alot of profanity (ex. Tarantino, Scorcese). A list doesn't help.--The Dominator (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree that the actual word count is irrelevant. While I've never done any formal research on the subject, I find myself constantly referring back to this list to compare movies, etc.  If I ever did do a research project (one which would acknowledge wiki as a veritable source), I believe I certainly would use this list.  I realize I'm basing my argument on my own example, but I think I represent many others.  However, if you must delete it, please at least keep the list somewhere else, which I think you want to.  Erik, I think the reason we have never seen this list in any other source is that most sources wouldn't want to 'dirty' themselves with such a statistic, which I know wiki doesn't worry about.  Maybe Maxim or Rolling Stone could pull off publishing a list like this, but few others would dare to.Chriscapitolo (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - this is ridiculous - this is encyclopedic content, just as much as Kitashinchi Station (thank you, Special:Random) is. Incidentally, this page is fun and makes my smile. Fuck. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 09:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to respond to the counterpoints provided by the other side, regarding WP:NOT, WP:NOT, and WP:NOT. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay then, I will provide a point by point counterargument of those. I am not, however, gonna argue over interpretation of these guidelines and policies in great detail. Many of the Wikipedia policies are open to multiple interpretations anyway (as is clear from the vigorous discussions here at AfD):
 * WP:NOT: The only of the five points that are mentioned that applies is number 4 (Statistics). The first sentence of that section reads: "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles.". I disagree that this list is confusing as it is accompanied by a clear introductory text that explains what the articles is listing. Also the criteria for inclusions, while arbitrary, are cleary defined and mentioned.
 * WP:NOT: The only of the five points that are mentioned that applies is number 1 (Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics ). In this case, I disagree that this is a loose association between the subjects, as, again, the association is clearly defined and, given that multiple websites are dedicated to statistics like this, are of significant cultural impact.
 * WP:NOT: Redirects to WP:NOT point 4 and is therefore redundant. --Reinoutr (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What about WP:OR? User:Dorftrottel 21:00, January 30, 2008
 * It makes me smile too, your reason for keep is what now?--The Dominator (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you respond to the fact that most of these films are not made famous because of the fact they most frequently use the word "fuck"? Some of them are, but many on the list are drawn from the family measurements resources.  In addition, the stats are "long and sprawling" because of the unnecessary "fucks per minute"-related columns that are irrelevant to this so-called list topic. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 21:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats reason for cleanup, not deletion. --Reinoutr (talk) 07:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No-brain keep Well-defined non-arbitrary inclusion criteria, topic whose notability is proven beyond reasonable doubt, scrupulously referenced. скоморохъ  ѧ 09:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the criteria is arbitrary: This is a list of non-pornographic films containing at least 100 spoken uses of the word "fuck" (or one of its derivatives), ordered by the number of such uses. We the editors are establishing that criteria.  In addition, the topic is not notable beyond reasonable doubt -- do not' mistake the notability of films in general and the notability word the word fuck to assume that a list of films that frequently use the f-word is encyclopedic.  It fails WP:NOT, WP:NOT, and WP:NOT.  Most of these films were not previously identified as films that ranked high for using the f-word, and editors here have personally established these so-called rankings, with these films having no relevance with each other.  It's inane to assume that the number of f-words used in a film intrinsically connects them all into an encyclopedic list. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 13:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read the discussion before voting, it seems that the deleters are always relevant to the topic, while everybody who wishes to keep just comes in and does something like "Keep, obviously notable" without reading through the discussion. If you'd actually read the arguments, than you'd realize that nobody says the topic is not notable, we're saying that the way the information is presented is not notable. --The Dominator (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment What we're trying to say, is that the information that this article has, has been made up. If I made an article called "List of films by alphabetic order of last name of first-billed actor" it could be true and referenced, but not encyclopedic.--The Dominator (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "We" understand what you are saying. "We" just don't agree and do consider this encyclopedic. --Reinoutr (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then "you" are mistaken. User:Dorftrottel 08:07, January 31, 2008
 * No I am not mistaken, whoever wrote this article made it up, that's a fact, not an opinion. Show me a reliable source that has a list like this. Or show me a site that lists movies by the non-existent phrase "fucks per minute".--The Dominator (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was talking to Reinoutr... Having looked for suitable sources to back it up, I do agree that the article topic is completely made up. User:Dorftrottel 14:06, February 2, 2008
 * Delete per above discussions. I suppose we can wait for the rest of this series of articles with names like List of films that most frequently use the word "shag", List of films that most frequently use the word "the", List of films that most frequently use the word "sex" or List of films that most frequently use the word "Britney". Vegaswikian (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Its entertaining and well sourced, Wiki isnt censored.Д narchistPig (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For god's sake, did you even read the discussion?!?!? 1. Entertaining is not a reason Wikipedia is not for entertainment. 2. Nobody said it isn't well sourced, just unencyclopedic and 3. Who said anything about censorship? I was talking about creating an article called "The word "fuck" in film. Please read the discussion before posting.--The Dominator (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd like to rebut a number of arguments for deletion.
 * These films are not notable for their use of the word "fuck". There is no requirement that each item in a list of superlatives be notable because of the list's subject.  All that is required is that the subject of the list be notable.  For example, Moose Jaw is not especially large but is legitimately included in List of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada; similarly, Dayton, Ohio is not famous for its size but is included in List of the largest urban agglomerations in North America.
 * This list is useless for research purposes.  The list points the reader researching profanity in film towards unusually profane films.  Also, the list gives evidence as to trends in profanity over time.
 * The rankings in the list are original research. The list does not give rankings.
 * The computation of "fuck"s per minute is original research. Trivial computations are not original research.  (Even if they were, this would be a reason to delete the FPM column, not to delete the entire list.)
 * We should have an article on profanity in film. This has nothing to do with this list.  Anyone is free to start the profanity in film article at any time.
 * The list is unencyclopedic. In the absence of supporting arguments, this is no more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
 * Spacepotato (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 6 is the general argument and the rest are arguments in support of it.

1. The list you mention is different because that actually ranks the cities. 2. These aren't "unusually profane films", these are just films that happen to use one profane word many times. 3. Nobody said it gives rankings, the way the info is put together is OR. 4. Well yeah, that is pure original research.--The Dominator (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Erik's notes. While the list certainly made me laugh, it is incompletely and is missing many films which are known for their use of the word because of the lack of available sourcing beyond IMDB due to their age (Harlem Nights anyone?).  I think the idea of a prose article is a good one, though maybe expanded to the use of all profanity in film, which is a far better way to discuss the controversy, shock, etc it can induce. Collectonian (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete- same as most lists of this sort, unencyclopaedic, and limitless.JJJ999 (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Each entry being famous for having a lot of 'fuck's is a sufficient, but not necessary, condition for inclusion. The list is nowhere near 'limitness', JJJ999. I quote myself that "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." It is not original research to restrict the article size for readability and to suit 'frequently' or whatever this article is named. Erik, if you want to make Profanity in film, then create it to complement this. These things can exist simultaneously, and Collectonian, while prose may be a 'better' way to go about it, that's not a reason to delete the list. Since we're not out to state the absolute truth, it's okay that the list is missing some films that you know should be on it. The list being incomplete is also a call for editing and research. WP:NOT means this article should not contain only statistics, so go ahead and add prose to it, which I've done a little. Steve and Orange Mike, there is no synthesis because no positions are pushed; the numbers are presented, nothing is concluded from them. Vegaswikian, if you can find sources for those words, then go ahead. The Dominator, if you want to use info here, that's a smerge, not delete, for GFDL reasons. –Pomte 09:21, 3 February 2008 (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.