Wikipedia:List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" - deletion policy

AfDs for this article: 
 * Votes for deletion/Record for most number of times the word fuck has been used in a film

Background
The renomination of the article List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" for deletion causes unnecessary disruption every time it repeats. It is disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.

Those who want it gone argue that it is an indiscriminate, cobbled together list. Those who want it kept say it defines a finite list and populates it with sourced information. At the time of writing the article has been nominated for deletion 11 times.

Proposed policy
Should the article be renominated for deletion, the following actions should be taken:
 * 1) Speedy close the AfD
 * 2) Untag the article
 * 3) Warn the nominator of this policy

Should an editor or proven sock/meat puppets persist in renominating the article for deletion, they may be blocked for 24 hours. If an editor or proven sock/meat puppets continues to renominate the article for deletion, the block can be doubled for each time the article is renominated.

The policy has an inbuilt expiry of 2010-01-01T00:00Z.

Supporting this policy does not constitute a statement that one believes the article should exist. It merely means you're sick of the disruption and amount of time being wasted on repeated AfD nominations.

Supporting this policy also does not state that one thinks the article should be renominated for deletion in 2010. McWomble (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) McWomble (talk) 09:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Ehhh I am not sure this is a good idea. I am actually in favor of keeping the article (see also the last AfD), but a special policy for one article will only rub people the wrong way. If the list is nominated for deletion again, so be it. Just post clear arguments why the article does not fail policies and should not be deleted. If there should be a policy against renominating articles too often, that discussion should be on the general deletion discussing pages (Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy) and not dealing with just a single article. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I don't think we need special rules like this. If a bad faith nomination happens, it can be dealt with the normal way. VG &#x260E; 14:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Looking over the AfDs, they were mostly improperly based. So if a series of improperly based AfDs are filed, should this prevent one from being filed that is properly based? Any admin can already close an AfD as being too soon, or repetitive, based on a review of the reason for the AfD. If that specific reason has been considered repeatedly, that's a good basis for speedy close. And, of course, it's appealable to WP:DRV. The problem I see with the article is that nearly everything seems to be poorly sourced. So, if we take out the poorly sourced material, is enough left for an article? That's what a new AfD might consider. The AfDs considered that the problems with the article -- poor sourcing was noted -- could be fixed with editing the article, but I don't know that the cleanup option was really considered. It's a bit of work to do, just, possibly, to then see the article be deleted! I've seen many AfDs for articles better sourced that resulted in Delete, so some special phenomenon was happening here, probably a reaction to a perceived attempt to censor. Which is not my concern at all. If the topic is covered in reliable source, we can usually presume it's notable. Is it? By the way, the title, unless based on reliable source, sounds like Original Research to me. Is there a source which gives "the films that most frequently" use the word. A list of sources for word counts does not establish that at all. "Frequently" is a judgment. Who made the judgment? --Abd (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Let the AfDs roll their course.  Even a nomination in bad faith will be cleared up soon enough.  Furthermore, wikipedia shouldn't have special policies regarding specific articles, that undermines the ideals it was founded upon. Themfromspace (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment

 * We don't create "policy" for specific articles. There are some guidelines which cover specific areas, such as reliable source guidelines or notability guidelines. This is really an RfC, and should be on the Article Talk page, not in WP space. And it would have no authority; if it is legitimate to speedy close a new AfD, it can already be done. And if it is not legitimate, no consensus now binds future editors. Bad idea. I'm tempted to copy the discussion here to the Article Talk and MfD this page.... Objections? --Abd (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)