Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Record for most number of times the word fuck has been used in a film

'''Please note that this is an archived discussion, which is no longer live. Please do not edit the page.'''

This page was nominated for deletion. There was no consensus to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcb21 (talk • contribs) 29 December 2004

Record for most number of times the word fuck has been used in a film
Thoroughly unencyclopedic information. Could, perhaps, be summarized somewhere in the article fuck. Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 07:12, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Another silly list that, while moderately entertaining, probably belongs at some place like Everything2, not here. I also question the validity/source of the information. Aerion//talk 07:16, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm the original author of the article. I have no objection if it's deleted. I created it because I saw a reference on the page for The Last Boy Scout that it held this record, and I knew it was wrong, and it seemed more sporting for me to provide documentation in its own page, rather than to just remove the page on hearsay. But I would shed no tears for its deletion. --Arcadian 07:18, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but rename to List of films that frequently use the word fuck, as that is what the current content is. - SimonP 08:03, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and re-name, as above. Dan100 10:25, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep under new name - David Gerard 11:42, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete unless verifiable sources for the counts are provided. Weak keep if easily verifiable (i.e. by some means other than sitting through the film and paying attention for two hours while punching a tally counter). Rename as per SimonP. Does the MPAA tabulate these things when they rate movies? Where does the information come from? Source is essential. Possibly compilation-copyright issue if all from one source but probably not. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:52, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Rename, wikipedia is not the guinness book. --fvw *  11:57, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
 * Delete: Wikipedia is not the Guiness Book or the Video Hound. (Surely "Resevoir Dogs" would win?)  Geogre 13:22, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not the Guiness Book or the Video Hound. Many entries can't even decide how many times the term was used. If kept, definately at new name, but it just doesn't seem worth the person-power to maintain in an encyclopedia--maybe a moviepedia, which Wikipedia is not. Niteowlneils 16:37, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Concur. Edeans 23:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Concur - delete. Rossami (talk) 06:06, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete this fuckcruft. Wyss 00:54, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * keep' Yuckfoo 03:18, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Gamaliel 03:25, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Reluctantly, I'm changing my vote to delete. I like the idea of the list, but I don't see how the information is possibly verifiable without violating No original research. This is just cut and paste from another website with no sources. Gamaliel 22:20, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep and re-name; wikipedia appeals to me, in part, because it is a reservoir of unusual information. Its accuracy should improve with time; if not, nobody will be killed or maimed by inaccurate "fuck" usage data. Solemnavalanche 08:52, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is trivia.  More importantly, it is data, not information.  An article on obscenity in film would be information;  a ranked listing is barely above raw data. Isomorphic 08:59, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - trivia - Andre Engels 15:10, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Trivia, sure, but what's unencyclopedic about trivia? Trivia is in the eye of the beholder, anyway. What if some film studies student is doing a project about the use of profanity in film? Bryan 19:32, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very interesting. Grue 19:56, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nelson Ricardo 04:25, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mark Richards 21:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename as above. bbx 04:39, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Elf-friend 10:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. For one thing, no one's going to type a name like that in the "go" box, or link to it for that matter.  Second, copyright concerns: The list is copied and pasted from Listology, which is provided as an external link in the article.  I would suggest adding that external link to the article on fuck, and perhaps even mentioning it in a paragraph in that article.  --LostLeviathan 22:07, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Abstain I don't mind if the page gets deleted, but to address the concern in the previous post by LostLeviathan and also brought up by Galamiel -- if you look at the Listology list and look at the Wikipedia page, it will be clear that it wasn't cut and paste. The Listology page had 19 entries, while the original wikipedia page had 45 entries (another user added The Blair Witch project to bring it up to 46, using IMDB as a reference). The list came from a variety of sources, (Listology being one of them), which were all included in the External links section. Usually the totals reconciled, but where they didn't, I included the variants as well. Happy new year, everybody! --Arcadian 03:36, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Thoroughly interesting and encyclopedic information.  Allow for organic growth and expansion.  GRider\talk 18:49, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)