Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of translations of Fuck


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus; kept. Johnleemk | Talk 10:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

List of translations of Fuck
move to wiktionary, where it truly belongs. mikka (t) 18:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep it!!
 * Is a transwiki possible for this sorta thing? The Land 19:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but a case has to be made that it is necessary. fuck already has a large number of translations, and even organizes them by meaning.  Given that this is the sort of dictionary article that garners a lot of attention, it's only worth the hassle of transwikifying this article if it will provide a significant number of additional translations.  Uncle G 20:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Something is wrong with the logic. The article has a huge number of translations. Translations are for wiktionary. If this article doesn't provide new ones, it must be simply deleted. mikka (t) 20:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Interesting article, but not appropriate for an encyclopedia.  Besides, Fuck already links to foreign versions. —Psychonaut 21:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - wonderful, informative article, goes well beyond a dictionary definition, adding many cultural elements. Like it or loathe it, "fuck" is an important part of modern culture. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 00:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - interesting and useful. There is actually quite a bit of academia surrounding the word, its origins, and derivatives. I know of several full books on the subject. This has the potential of being more than just trivia. 23skidoo 02:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC) DenisMoskowitz
 * The academia surrounding the word and its origins and derivatives can go in the main article Fuck. What we don't need is a list of translations, which is what Wiktionary and interwiki links are for. If we accept this article, we might as well accept List of translations of X for every possible English word X. —Psychonaut 02:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the Fuck article recently moved to have the main article split in to sub sections, one of which was History of fuck, the second being List of translations of Fuck (this article). This article's creation was specifically as a result of a consensus by users/contributors of the Fuck article so as to prevent the Fuck article from becoming too lengthy or too subjectively talking about individual aspects of Fuck. Talk:Fuck Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 04:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * From actually reading that talk page it is clear that there was no consensus for the translations to be split out. Several editors expressed the opinion that the section should be simply removed outright, and not split out into a sub-article, because this was Wiktionary territory, pure and simple. Uncle G 04:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant, see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Fuck#Translations. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( TALK )  04:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Note the notes in the article provide a more meaningful explanation of where the word came from, which is a vast improvement on the suggestions made in the main Fuck article, and have not been mentioned in the Wiktionary article (which is written from an entirely different perspective). Not redundant. Especially notable is the perceived true etymology of fuck, which is disproved in this article.  Its not based on "Fricken" in German as that word was not used in German until after it was used in English... Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 04:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thus anything not appropriate for the wiktionary entry should be merged to Fuck. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( TALK )  04:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * A merge isn't necessary. Everything in this article was originally taken from there in the first place, and will be somewhere in the history of Fuck. Uncle G 04:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary.  Shouldn't be reverted back into fuck, either.  I'll defer to Uncle G's judgement that this shouldn't be transwikied. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Wikipedia is not Babelfish. I will not spill the beans by listing any other words that there do not exist lists of translations of, but merely say that this is not encyclopedic. -  brenneman (t) (c)  09:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pure trivia. No need to keep or transwiki. / Peter Isotalo 11:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Freak of Nurture and UncleG. → Ξxtreme Unction  {yak ł blah } 12:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete it adds nothing and attracts cruft and mistranslations. In many cases there is no good translation, but people keep adding them anyway.DenisMoskowitz 00:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete move interesting cultural stuff to Fuck and move translations to Wiktionary with a note on the Fuck page. - FrancisTyers 15:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - this was split off from Fuck. If it's not wanted, the material should be remerged - David Gerard 12:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There's no need to retain this material in order to merge it into fuck. It came from there in the first place. Uncle G 03:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Well written, thoroughly researched, goes well beyond a Wiktionary entry. Owen&times; &#9742;  01:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I take that you haven't actually looked at the Wiktionary entry, which in fact goes well beyond this. Uncle G 03:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary already does this better, and will only get further ahead of this as its coverage of all of the target languages extends. No argument has been made that there are any translations here that Wiktionary doesn't already have.  This material is obviously unwanted in Fuck, as per the discussion on Talk:Fuck.  Even if it were wanted, it could be resurrected from that article's own history.  Let Wiktionary be the "lexical companion to Wikipedia" that is supposed to be, handling translations of words, thesaurus entries, and suchlike.  Delete. Uncle G 03:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * From a quick look, neither Arabic nor Hebrew are on the Wiktionary entry, for example. With over 200 million Arabic speakers, I'd say that's a major omission. Owen&times; &#9742;  03:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Then add them. That's no excuse for doing lexicographic work in the wrong project; nor does it invalidate what I said. Uncle G 09:33, 18 December 2005 (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.