Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" (9th 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 per WP:SNOW again. feydey (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

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

It really pains me that such a horribly non-encyclopedic list has managed to last so-ooo long on Wikipedia. Without stepping foot into the territory of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or rather, OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXISTTHANKGOD) this list is too arbitrary in nature and the "fuck count" really boggles. Hopefully the ninth time is the charm here. JBsupreme (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC) The nominator's complaint about it being unencyclopedic is addressed in the introduction to the list, which establishes the notability and significance of the use of the word "fuck" as one of the most taboo words in American film. A list like this tracking the use of a non-taboo word such as "haddock" or "collander" would indeed be trivia, but that's not the case here. Far from being some sort of extraneous trivia, this list seems to me to be a very good example of the sort of thing that a non-paper encyclopedia can do well: a summary of an issue which may be irrelevant to many people, but which has been the subject of heated controversy in popular culture for decades. Kittybrewster rightly asks who would have the time to count all the uses of these words, and I think that's an important point: the significance of this word, and the relevance of the list, is precisely that so much attention is paid to it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep too arbitrary - no, this has a clear inclusion crieteria. It's no less arbitrary than several of the featured lists on WP. Everything is referenced and your comment "Hopefully the ninth time is the charm here" just smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The word, the minimum number of uses of the word (and the choice of an absolute value rather than a frequency), the exclusion of certain films - all are arbitrarily chosen. The article is nothing but a list of statistics. The references are all (in the cases I checked) either dead links or to archives of a single, now defunct, site which does not appear to be reliable. I like the idea that such an article exists but there seems to be nothing in WP policy to support its inclusion. I42 (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment (And Keep. But mostly comment.) Seriously? Again? This feels like it's become "keep throwing it against the wall 'til it sticks" thing at this point. I can't say anything here that hasn't been said before. The dead horse is pulp. Stop beating it. LaMenta3 (talk) 07:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I used these arguments also at previous AfDs, but I guess I am allowed to do that like other people are allowed to nominate this article yet 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. It is true that quite a few links point to an archived site (at the Internet Archive), since that site is no longer active, but the information is still available for anyone to see.
 * 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 10 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) 08:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: any list of "...est" has to have a cutoff, be it highest mountains, top-scoring sportspeople or uses of the most high-profile profanity in the English language. 100 is a round number which keeps the list to a manageable size. This topic seems reasonably encyclopedic, and potentially useful for research: "Which films has the word been used in?... any pattern of changes over time? ... are they made in US/UK/elsewhere? (have to follow through to the articles, for that one, as it strangely isn't included in the table, but at least it's a start)". PamD (talk) 09:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep In addition to the comments already made, I'd also like to add that this isn't just some random statistic. A "fuck" limit is in use by organizations like the MPAA who rate films and films that use such words too often affect their rating with it. - Mgm|(talk) 09:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, a well-referenced encyclopaedic article, and per all the millions of other reasons listed through the years during these AfDs. No valid deletion criteria has been provided, or I have missed it. +Hexagon1 (t) 10:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. No evidence has been presented that consensus has changed in the last 6 months.  Plenty of good arguments to keep presented in the last AFD, very few arguments to delete.  Suspicion that WP:IDONTLIKEIT comes into play here is hard to ignore. JulesH (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The article meets WP:RS standards, and I would think the value of the subject was already confirmed in the last nine RfAs. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. How does anyone have the time to count the number of times a word is used in a movie? Kittybrewster &#9742;  11:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. As others have noted, this list is well-sourced (copious references to reliable sources), and there are no WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR], [WP:SYN or other issues; it is also well-presented and well-organised. Overall, it's a fine bit of work.
 * Comment Friend, thou art great in faith and I do not wish to discourage thee, but smiting a stone Walle with thine Heade hath left no crack upon said Structure, and there hath been nine other Friends who tried before thee. Friend Mandsford (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and suggest early close. No real argument for deleting this list is given; it may be disliked by some, but this frankly does not justify repetitious attempts to delete it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy fucking keep. The notability of this fucking topic is well established, and the majority of the fucking sources are perfectly fucking valid.  Those fucking sources also show that the fucking topic is not fucking arbitrary.  Fuck, how many fucking times do we have to have this fucking discussion? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. WTF is notable about this list?  It seems to only be kept for the novelty of it.  65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I wish someone would take this to FL. That might not stop the AfDs, but at least it might slow them down.  See my arguments from previous AfDs, I'm to tired to restate them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The list is completely arbitrary. It doesn't mention a single X-rated porn film, for a start. Why not? Because if it did, the Top 10 would look very different indeed (and it would then also be virtually impossible to keep the list up-to-date and accurate). So, from an encyclopedic point of view, it's very incomplete and it will never be complete. That's bad. Personally I also completely fail to see the point of this list, but that's another story. Have we got a List of films that most frequently use the word "cunt" yet?  Yintaɳ  17:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep with an injunction against further AfDs on this article; if someone wants to bring it here a tenth time, I think they should need to take it to DRV first.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  17:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * COMMENT - Just for my information: What/where is "DRV"?  Yintaɳ  17:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's Deletion_Review. My reasoning is that this nomination is the clearest, most blatant case of WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED that I've ever seen in my life; it's a kind of forum-shopping, where an editor or group of editors keep on re-nominating the same article again and again til they get the result they want in an attempt to circumvent consensus. DRV's role is to examine whether there was anything wrong with a previous discussion at AfD, with the presumption that if nothing was wrong, the previous result should stand.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  17:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Got it, thank you.  Yintaɳ  17:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete On the basis that we are also reminded to IGNOREALLRULES, I suggest that this article is an attempt to link an assortment of films in the style of a dissetation rather than a credible entry. Yes the word "fuck" is taboo, but so are many other 4-letter words; I can't help thinking that allowing this list opens up the door for copy-cat articles with even less value. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:50, 16 April 2009 (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.