Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" (8th 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. ~  L'Aquatique   [  talk  ] 05:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"
AfDs for this article: 
 * Votes for deletion/Record for most number of times the word fuck has been used in a film
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I know that this has been afd'd multiple times,but the subject really shouldn't belong in an encyclopedia. As several other editors have suggested,should there such lists for other words? Like "shit"? We could just make a list for all of them. Seriously,this article has got to go. Fireaxe888 (talk) 08:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Fuck yes! per nom. &mdash; Werdna  &bull;  talk  08:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Articles for deletion/List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" see one of the "delete" comments. "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)" There's your proof. Ok,to put some policies up.I believe this article is a clear violation or WP:N and WP:INDISCRIMINATE --Fireaxe888 (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fuck no! Unlike most lists, this isn't an indiscriminate collection of crufty information. The material is well cited and notability is not an issue considering the nature of the word.  Profanity in film is a notable topic  and this list documents the rise in profanity in recent films.  Themfromspace (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as there's no real reason for deletion given by the nom. "the subject really shouldn't belong in an encyclopedia." - Why not? What WP policies does it violate?  "As several other editors have suggested,should there such lists for other words?" - Which editors?  When did they say this?  Can you link to these alledged discussions?  "Seriously,this article has got to go." - WHY has it got to go?  Lugnuts  (talk) 12:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Lugnuts makes a good point, it seems as if were nominated more in personal preference than for actually failing a WP policy. Themfromspace also presents a good point with "Profanity in film is a notable topic". It has become a unique word, in that, there is no other word used like it used in films. The point was made about other words, but to my knowledge, no other word is used anywhere near as often as "fuck". Can the list be improved? Absolutely, but it should stay and be allowed that oppurtunity.  Black  ngold29   12:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Extremely strong Keep This is getting ridiculous, if it survived seven nominations, do you really think it has a better chance of being deleted now? At this rate, this article could be able to break this article's record in being the most nominated article on Wikipedia. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Discard what I just said, looks like the final nomination of that article did the trick, maybe this article will eventually be deleted. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE states that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Even if one argues that the word "fuck" is notable, that does not automatically transfer notability to any medium where the word was used. I see this article as fancruft and I don't see notability in it. I also question the reliability of the sources used to obtain an exact number of profane words since many of them seem to give estimates yet the article claims specific figures. For example, the preview online source for Menace II Society cites that the word was obscenities were used in "roughly 317 occurrences" and the "f-word" was cited as being used 228 times. If our only source specifically uses the word "roughly", we should not be presenting an exact number because one was never specified. By the way, even though the above source extimates 317 228, the Wikipedia article lists it as 300. Where was this number derived from? I think that this article is based on estimates from questionable sources and lacks clear notability. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep While I can understand the nominator's feelings, the opinion that "this shouldn't be in an encyclopedia" isn't a reason for deletion. One of the Little Red Book sayings is "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia", and clicking on a random article will confirm that.  As for this article, it has survived one nomination after another because it wasn't created to "shock" people.  The encyclopedic value of such an article is that it's a measure of attitudes about censorship.  The word didn't appear at all in film prior to 1968 or so (there was a film called "What ever happened to old what's his name" or something like that); for many years, use of the f-word was the difference between an "R" rating and a "PG"; even with the change in attitudes about censorship, use of the word depends on what audience you're aiming for. While I suppose that my personal preference would be that the article be called "List of films that most frequently use the word 'f***'", I think it serves its purpose just fine as is.  Mandsford (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment About that "several editors have noted" thing,here's a link.
 * Keep and suggest speedy close; after nine tries it just looks more and more like disruption. Only subjective reasons have been given for this ninth attempt to delete this page. The criterion for inclusion is reasonably clear. And the page is a worthwhile resource for the fastidious. While there probably are not many people who would go see a film just because the script uses "fuck" often, there are a fair number of people who would prefer to avoid some films for just that reason.  This list tells them which films do.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, the title of the AFD says 8 but by my count this is the eleventh fucking time this has been discussed. The last time was only in March. Are we to be subjected to an AFD every six months? Keep and I second the speedy close. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep without a question this article satisfies all the needs to stay on wikipedia. When an article called fuck can stay on wiki then why not this. This is no exception and it also provides pretty good list of all the movies and moreover notability should not be a concern as any ordinary person would use it more commonly as greeting a person. Kalivd (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL--Termer (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No F*cking Way! - After 7 previous AFD's failing on this list, i would have thought people had got the message by now. :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nom argues that this list is indiscriminate because the 4-letter word in question is not notable, but this is clearly not the case. 15:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   -- VG &#x260E; 15:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: I think that personal preference should have little or no effect on the notability of a subject. Just because you don't like a word, that does not make it any less notable. This article should clearly stay.--Mjr162006 (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fuck this AfD!! — (sorry, had to say it; I mean keep) needs cleanup and proper sourcing which is apparently out there, but no deletion necessary. Nom is also not convincing of deletion. MuZemike  ( talk ) 16:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to add to my keep rationale, Wikipedia is also not censored, if that is the direction the nom is heading in. (That might be my delusion, however :)). MuZemike  ( talk ) 16:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * reluctant Keep: As much as I think it should be deleted because I think it's a ridiculous subject (what's next, "Movies That Contain The Word: The"?), but having survived this many other AFDs, any more nominations are surely for disruptive reasons. The People (and Cabal, and just about anyone else by this time) have spoken, and the result should be Keep! NDCompuGeek (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * DELETE for fuck's sake. It's an indiscriminate list which relies upon unreliable sources, such as IMDb. I'm disappointed that the majority of !keep votes here amount to little more than WP:ILIKEIT. JBsupreme (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The article uses multiple sources for the word counts, but IMDB is explicitly marked as not being one of them. Most of the sources are parental control sites, so why would they be inaccurate? VG &#x260E; 17:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Because this external article given as a source for the word count in the film Menace II Society uses the word "roughly" when counting obscene words which would imply a count that may or may not be accurate as well as that it presents 228 as the number of occurances of the word "fuck" but the Wikipedia article lists that number as 300. That's what makes for an inaccurate count in an article whose primary purpose is counting things. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like some editor misread the reference, since it attributes roughly 317 "atrocious obscene language" occurrences, of which only 218 were the f-word. That kind of problem can be solved by editing; I don't see why the article has to be deleted because someone copied the wrong number. That still doesn't answer why you think the reference is inaccurate. Even the use of a rough count doesn't seem to be a serious problem. Would it affect the article a lot if there were only 215 f-word uses? VG &#x260E; 19:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess what I'm trying to say is that this is an article whose primary purpose is to list specific numbers and to sort a list of films based on those numbers. Yet the references being used to source those numbers and, in turn, sort the list do not contain exact numbers, they contain estimates. Even if each entry in the Wikipedia article now specifically says "estimated X number of times the word was used", I'm still not satisfied that the method used to count those words is correct. What is the method? Is it actually someone's job to watch films and tally swear words or do we have a sophisticated computer program to count the word "fuck"? Sarcasm aside, I believe those sources are not reliable sources because I don't see what kind of accuracy related scrutiny they are being subjected to. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reiterating for the last time: I don't see the rough count as a major problem here. The title is "List of films that most frequently use the word", not "Exact number of times these films used the word", or even "Ranking of films by the number of times..."VG &#x260E; 10:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong but these films are actually sorted by a so called "Fuck count" (ie, "Exact number of times these films used the word") in the table as well as the graph below the table. To me, that clearly says that this article contains a "ranking of films by the number of times..." regardless of article's title. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete arbitrary list, why not a article about movies and the word "bitch" or "toad" (random). Suffers the same problem that article about busty porn stars had, who decides the criteria? Why is 100 used as the minimum. A 70 minute movie with 80 uses of the word would be frequent, but a 150 minute movie (2 1/2 hours) with 100 fucks would not be a lot.  TJ   Spyke   18:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, there is no other word that is used as much as "fuck". If you can prove me wrong and creating a list of 50 movies that include the word "bitch" (or any other word for that matter) that is cited and extensive, I'll vote to keep it, but I don't see it happening. You do have a point with the fpm, but that can be adressed and included in the article, I don't see it as grounds for deletion.  Black  ngold29   18:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that "fuck" is the most used word in films? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If there were another list, such as one that documented the use of another four letter English word, it would be equally as trivial and have the exact same sourcing problems as this one. I can guarantee that.  JBsupreme (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no "sourcing problems" there appear to be multiple sites which count this and are not IMDB. I doubt you could find many sources with a "shit counter". And to SWik: If there is another one that you can cite then go for it; but "List of films that most frequently use the word "the"" sounds boring.  Black  ngold29   18:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Boring or not, I don't think that anyone here has proof that "fuck" is the most commonly used word in films. I think that's pure speculation. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * @ SWik78: No offense, but I think you know full well exactly what was meant by the word being most common. Anyone can tell you it is not the most common four letter word of all. That is obvious. It is however the most common of the American  four-letter swear words. That intention was very obvious and hard to miss.Mjr162006 (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, the intention was missed and I do not at all appreciate the underlying insinuation of my failure to assume good faith. I did not know full well that that's what was meant from previous comments even though it might make sense now. Call it obvious, call it hard to miss but speak for yourself when you say that and please refrain from accusing me of misdoings when I've done my best to do so towards others. Thank you! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I just wanna congratulate this article for surviving seven nominations already. At this rate, it will get to nomination 18 in no time at all. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, completely arbitrary and indiscriminate list which, as SWik78 has pointed out, relies on sources which are too loose for that of an encyclopedia and thus fail our reliable sources guideline.  coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  21:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think the article defines a finite list and populates it with sourced information, even if there are some gray areas in the sources. The intro also makes the case for the subject being encyclopedic. (And finally, let me just say this gratuitously: Belgium!) —C.Fred (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. How many times must an article undergo a WP:SNOW keep? This is starting to remind me of the infamous recurring GNAA AFD. 23skidoo (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Shit, no! -- Delete Another indiscriminate, cobbled together list that appears to have some holes in it (for starters, where are the Richard Pryor concert films?). Ecoleetage (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Regardless of IDONTLIKEIT concerns (and, frankly, I don't like it), this article is definitely an example of selecting random bits (similar to a "List of bald Iowa Governors" would be) and putting them together, which is inconsistent with the guidelines etc. for lists. Nyttend (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have nothing against the word itself,but the actual article is just a list of movies notable because of how many times they use the word "fuck".This isn't WP:NOTCENSORED,it's a just a reasonable nom to delete a not-so-reasonable article.--Fireaxe888 (talk) 08:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep while I throw snowballs at about half the !voters. McWomble (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Most of these arguments I also used at previous AfDs, but I guess I am allowed to do that like other people are allowed to nominate this article again for AfD. Also, I acknowledge that 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:
 * 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. For example, there is a movie dedicated to the usage of the word fuck, as well as many scientific articles.
 * 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 mentioned before, 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, something that is done all over Wikipedia, see for a few examples these featured lists: List of tallest buildings in Baltimore, List of longest suspension bridge spans, List of wealthiest charitable foundations, etc...
 * The main argument in several previous AfDs was sourcing. It is properly sourced now for a long time, making all information verifiable. Some of the numbers might be estimates, but that fact could easily be added to the introduction of the list.
 * Articles likes this are exactly what makes Wikipedia different from other encyclopedias.
 * We have lists like this, with similar sourcing, all over Wikipedia. I am not gonna give overwhelming evidence, just one totally random example that I could think of. See the article List of largest suspension bridges, with the bridge at position 17 in the list. This: is the supplied reference. Not exactly a reference that discusses how this bridge is well known for its length. It just shows some details and, indeed, the length of the bridge. Is that article ever nominated for deletion? Not once. In fact, it is a Featured list.
 * So in summary, the article does NOT violate WP:A, WP:OR, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:LIST, WP:CLS or WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Therefore, I do not see any grounds for deletion. --Reinoutr (talk) 10:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Per the old WP:GNAA I propose a new policy: Kick the ass of anyone who renominates List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" for deletion before 2010. McWomble (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we also have the article List of AfDs that most frequently use the word "fuck" too?!  Lugnuts  (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and nominate article as one that has been the most times sent to AfD without being deleted and salted.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Disruptive repeat nomination per WP:DEL. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete since this is not a credible list. First of all, the word itself and its usage in film is notable, as reflected by the film Fuck.  However, many items in this list are not relevant to the topic.  If you notice the sourcing, these are mainly resources for families to gauge the appropriateness of a film before seeing it.  It's hard to share my tacit knowledge with everyone, but the majority of these entries are not highlighted for the number of f-words used.  I think that a more credible list would be List of films known for excessive profanity or having that list under Profanity in film because the reality is, some films known for profanity are not going to be the highest-ranked.  Let's look at an example... Scarface, to my recollection, is pretty famous for its profanity, yet a film like Alpha Dog is ranked highly though I doubt the latter has been as recognized as the former for its profanity.  The same goes for other kinds of comparisons.  I honestly think that we need a Wikipedia article with an actual discourse on profanity in film and highlighting the films most recognized for their profanity.  The usage of family resources' counters really skews the importance of these entries by ranking them in this arbitrary fashion. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 15:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I understand your argument and even partially agree with you. But, out of curiosity, do you think the now featured List of largest suspension bridges should be changed to a List of suspension bridges known for their length, which would include extensive trimming of the list and removal of most of the information? That list is also built from sources that do not discuss the length of the bridges, but just list it, see for example. The point is, we have things like this all over Wikipedia. If many people do not agree with that, shouldn't there be a more broad discussion about it, rather than deleting random articles? --Reinoutr (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that List of largest suspension bridges is an example of a list that does work. Each list uses different criteria, and I think that when it comes to infrastructure, there are specific details that have always been important to humanity.  We've always tried to span across enormous gaps and tried to build the tallest structures.  When it comes to the f-word, though, I am not as convinced that the word count is an important accomplishment.  Excessive usage is something to be discussed, certainly, but the list as it stands fails to adjust for the various contexts, such as subject or length.  A stand-up comedy is going to have its share of f-words, and the number can also fluctuate with the length of films.  I mean, your example even specifies "suspension bridges", and there are obviously different bridge categories because of their inherently different structures.  Not to mention the objective measurement of the criteria -- I think it is safe to say that length will be a much more steady criteria than a word used in mediums for artistic merit.  Seeing this AFD go around the block again and again, I just think that it would be ultimately useful to encompass a list of films known for their excessive profanity in the context of resources like what you identified.  A topic like the list of bridges is clearly acceptable, yet this one seems like it needs to be reevaluated to put it in the best context, like I suggested, a sub-topic of a more detailed and encyclopedic topic. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 18:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * While I not neccesarily disagree, you did switch argument here. Above you argued to include only movies notable for their profanity and now your argument is that "fuck" is less defined than "length". And to your argument that the other list even specifies "suspension bridges", I would say that this one even specifies "fuck" (as opposed to other word/bridges). Personally, I would read your argument as a whole more as a cleanup argument rather then a delete. --Reinoutr (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try to clarify my stance. I think you made a good point about the lists of bridges, which is why I may have shifted my argument.  I think that the application of the criteria matters... looking at something like Fuck, it is very meta, just writing in the dialog to set a record.  In that regard, it's "easy" to pull off something like that for this list.  The same can't be said for bridges, if you understand what I mean by the strength of the measurement.  I am not a fan of this article as the topic is named and written.  Maybe another article (Profanity in film) could be written using elements like the studies you mentioned, but I think that citing the family-friendly resources to compile such a list is a bit forced. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 22:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I too would welcome a Profanity in film article and would consider the option of merging some info from this list into that (undoubtely more encyclopedic) article later. But, I would like such an article to be created first, rather than first deleting this one. By the way, the list orginally had a column which correct for the length of the movie (FPM, fucks per minute), but this was removed after several people argued that was orignal research. Although I disagree with that notion (simple division of two sourced numbers should not, anywhere on Wikipedia, be considered original research), I removed the column to deal with their complaints. --Reinoutr (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - no third-party sources to demonstrate that the subject has been discussed in serious fashion outside Wikipedia. Moreover, the list is indiscriminate, sets up a slippery slope and consists of an OR synthesis. Biruitorul Talk 00:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well-sourced, single-criteria discriminate list.  I don't see any reason to delete it; there's really nothing new to add to this.  Celarnor Talk to me  03:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- As long as the list is sourced (and there's no question to my mind that its notable), then there's absolutely zero (real) reason to delete other. If you don't like it, don't click. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: An indiscriminate list. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 12:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see no reason to alter past consensus on this. The article has plenty of sources and clearly meets WP:V. Some people have claimed it is original research, but by the criteria they use, any list article would either be copied directly from somewhere else (and thus be a probable copyvio) or else constitute original research. *** Crotalus *** 15:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per all reasonable arguments. This is an awesome list.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fuckin' Keep! per above stated reasons. Well cited, well drafted, and very interesting list. People whining that it's "arbitrary" need to realize that almost _all_ information is arbitrary ;) ( User talk:Lunisneko ) 05:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Really now. To me this AfD comes off as a deletion just because it's based on a "bad word". There are no bad words. There are words, and there is context. The context of this article is fairly encyclopedic, and the article is well done. The reasons given to delete the article don't hold water. --Ifrit (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ...except that the list indiscriminate and the sources cited are not reliable. Hold your water in that.  JBsupreme (talk) 06:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not all of us believe that; I see it as a perfectly discriminate list (i.e, Movies that use the word 'Fuck' enough to be notable for it), or at least could become close enough so through regular editing practices that deletion isn't a good solution. I guess if you'd rather have the hierarchy of lists have a missing "single subject, single discriminatory criteria" level ... still, I don't see how this is possibly indiscriminate (as a simpler list like "(all) Movies that use the word 'fuck'" would be), and I still haven't seen anything to indicate that the source isn't reliable.  Celarnor Talk to me  06:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Celarnor, most of the films in this list are not notable for using the f-word a lot. If you look at the citations, these are just family-friendly resources that say, this is how many vulgar words were used, period.  They don't prop up any of the films as notable for excessive profanity, just reports the word count.  Some on the list are known for their profanity, certainly, but it is misleading to say that all these films are "known" for their frequent f-word usage.  We the editors put such films in the list based on the word counts, personally invoking their importance. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 20:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what it is now, and I'm fine with that as long as there's a lower bound (i.e, 100 in this case) to distinguish it from "List of movies containing the word 'Fuck'", which I'd be more opposed to. But even were that not enough, it could quite easily become a list of movies particularly notable for a high count of the word; deletion isn't a necessary step for that to happen, so I don't see how it helps any.  Celarnor Talk to me  04:03, 21 October 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.