Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of Songs Containing the word Fuck in a Prominent Position


 * Keep. Seems like a valid topic for a list to me, not unlike a similar list we have for the use of fuck in movies. Inclusion criteria can obviously be tweaked. Having said that, I would respectfully suggest that the nom review WP:OWN, which he clearly does not understand . Setting parameters for a list = editing an article. It is the recommmended course of action in the List guideline. There is thus no reason to attack the author of this article and some of the editors here should probably review WP:AGF as well. The speedy deleters above also have no grounds for their "votes". "Totally pointless" is opinion; It is not a CSD. --JJay 03:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Creating guidelines to compensate for a poor article title is controlling. Not-withstanding From the List Guidelines you'd like referenced "To avoid problems with lists, the criteria for inclusion must comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. That is, if someone is listed as an X, that person must have been identified as an X by a reliable published source" I'm sure the author won't have a problem citing references for how "prominent" he feels the usage of the word Fuck is in one song over another. "Lists should always include unambiguous statements" The title is obviously ambiguous and subjective. By your own argument it should be deleted. --Crossmr 04:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know what sources can be cited. I do know that you were out of line to accuse the author of violating WP:OWN. You state: Creating guidelines to compensate for a poor article title is controlling. That is false. WP:List mandates "unambiguous statements of membership criteria". If you want to challenge the validity of the list that is fine. But don't attack other editors for trying to make it adhere more closely to the guidelines. You should realize that article/list content as well as titles evolve over time. Titles can and are frequently changed. That is the nature of editing here. But I would never argue for deletion because of a weak title. Again, I would encourage you to review WP:AGF. You should also review WP:CSD, since you tagged this as a speedy 26 minutes after creation on the grounds that "prominent is subjective and open to interpretation" . "Subjective" is not a CSD criteria. Regarding your points on verifiability, I see little problem verifying songs with fuck in their titles. That is an element of this list that is completely free of subjectivity and could be a valuable addition to our songsmith coverage. On a final note, if you are really interested in avoiding ambiguity and subjectivity, it might be a good idea not to start your AfD noms with the non-word "listcruft", which many people find highly insulting. --JJay 15:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And I could see you labelling my behaviour as attacking insulting as well. Not knowing what sources can be cited is a further indication that this list is indescriminate. Regarding verifiability, fuck in the title is not the only criteria he created. This criteria is still ambiguous and "regular" can be argued many ways. He probably means frequently (which is also ambiguous) when he says "Songs where the word "fuck" or a sentence containing the word "fuck" is repeated regularly". You won't be able to find a source that can verify the regularity of the word fuck in a song. As for it being listcruft, its an indiscriminate criteria.--Crossmr 15:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have indicated and provided examples showing that you misunderstand guidelines and policy. If you find that insulting, I can't and won't argue with you. However, I would hope that you improve your knowledge of these guidelines/policies in the future. That means not making up CSD criteria, not misapplying WP:OWN and starting edit wars and not biting newcomers. --JJay 15:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't make up CSD criteria. Because of the subjectivity of the title of the article there was no meaningful content. Just because you interpret that to mean one thing and I interpret it to mean another doesn't mean I "made it up". You might do well to look at your WP:AGF yourself, your entire contribution to this discussion has been in assuming bad faith on my part. As for WP:OWN, while I indicated what he did was a violation of WP:OWN he had an opportunity to respond to that and instead chose to be uncommunicative and just re-apply the material. 2 reverts isn't an edit war. And as for WP:BITE if you check he was making edits at least a couple weeks before me, I don't believe that extends him any protection in that context. --Crossmr 16:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You tried to have the article speedy deleted on non-existent grounds. The CSD was rejected . That is fact, not interpretation. My "entire contribution" to the discussion is not an assumption of bad faith on your part. Not by a long shot. I have argued the merits and validity of this topic for an article here. I also assume no bad faith on your part. I think you were acting out of good faith, but based on the misinterpretation of various guidelines. I have already pointed out that I believe you were quite wrong to cite WP:OWN as grounds for removing the list inclusion criteria. Additionally, you made no effort to justify the removal on the article talk page. In fact, you left no message whatsoever on the article talk page. The article author did leave a message and you did not respond. WP:Own would only apply if the editor refused to allow any change to the list criteria/article contents etc. That was not the case here, particularly as the author seemed to be asking for dialogue. Instead, one might accuse you of violating wp:own since through your reverts you were controlling the content by disallowing the establishment of list criteria. You were also doing so without any participation or explanation on the article talk page. You may not believe that wp:bite applies, but it is common courtesy to explain objections and removals on the article talk page. You chose to take the "uncommunicative" route by not engaging in dialogue.--JJay 16:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I left a message in the edit summary. This is an acceptable practice. He re-added the text without responding to my reasoning. Thats not communicative. When he actually tried to explain later, he actually left that as I'd placed the AfD. There is a few minutes difference, but the way I place AfD tags, I'd started a few minutes before that. As for his initial message, he gave no reason as to why it wasn't controlling. He didn't cite list guidelines. --Crossmr 18:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Your reversion edit summaries consisted of: "setting guidelines for adding content to the article is dangerously close to WP:OWN" ; and "maybe you don't get it, you're trying to control the content, that IS a violation of WP:OWN" . You were wrong on both counts and your reversions were based on a misinterpretation of the WP:Own policy and the list guidelines. You never expressed any opposition to the particulars of the list inclusion criteria, you objected to their addition by a specific editor. In less than 90 minutes following the creation of this article, while it was being actively edited, you speedy tagged it using non-existent criteria, reverted twice to remove list inclusion criteria and nominated for deletion. You made no real attempt to start a dialogue. Your actions violated wp:own, particularly the following passage: Although working on an article does not entitle one to "own" the article, it is still important to respect the work of your fellow contributors. When making large scale removals of content, particularly content contributed by one editor, it is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against him or her. Blocking editing of an article, i.e. repeatedly removing content without a valid reason, is against policy. Using cryptic edit summaries that misstate policy is not a good approach. Discussing your objections on the talk page, i.e. working with your fellow editors, is the better approach. --JJay 18:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * subjectivity is not CSD, but patent nonsense is. Since the list was subjective, it had no value and there was nothing to be saved from it, there was no meaningful content.--Crossmr 15:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is far from "patent nonsense". The rest of your comment is pure opinion. Again, you should strive to understand CSD before misapplying labels. --JJay 15:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Along lines similar to the above (I spent ten minutes typing it before that was posted, and I'm not letting it go now!) :) ...I'm assuming you're referring to the list of films ordered by uses of the word "fuck". I can see how such a list could be carried over to the music world in a useful way, but the scope of this particular article is much wider and much more ambiguous. Per List guideline, "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources" (emphasis added). As it stands, the criteria for "prominent" is open to argument--one could argue that plenty of songs use "fuck" repeatedly without its use being especially prominent, another could argue that such use is prominent by definition. Without a definition from a reputable source, not only will the list almost certainly fail the list guidelines, it will also probably violate WP:OR. The movie list deftly avoids that problem by referencing an outside source. If the scope of the article is changed to something like 'List of songs ordered by uses of the word "fuck"' AND a similar source can be found for this article, I'd be willing to reconsider, but otherwise there's no real comparison. HumbleGod 05:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - also, as for "attacking the author," I would presume to do no such thing. That said, the author has been on the attack himself here in a particularly uncivil manner. HumbleGod 05:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. My original remarks indicated that I thought inclusion criteria could be tweaked. The same can be said for the title. I have no problem with that sort of discussion with good faith editors, which should be taking place on the article talk page. Since you see the utility in the list, the answer is improvement not deletion...and not obsessing over the title. A pertinent example of the type of song that should be included is "America, Fuck Yeah"
 * America...America...America, FUCK YEAH!...Coming again, to save the mother fucking day yeah...America, FUCK YEAH!...Freedom is the only way yeah...Terrorist your game is through cause now you have to answer too...America, FUCK YEAH!...So lick my butt, and suck on my balls....America, FUCK YEAH!
 * Few editors would argue that it doesn't belong on a list of this type. Its title and lyrics are easily verifiable and many sources and reviews comment on their original use of the word fuck. On a side note, I will not defend the author's words in this discussion. I will say that I find his reaction somewhat understandable after being forced to edit war with the nom here over improving the article and being falsely accused of violating WP:OWN - all of which is a further violation of WP:BITE. --JJay 15:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing justifies uncivil behaviour on wikipedia. You control your reactions.--Crossmr 15:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Actually, I still don't see much utility in the list as it currently stands. The current article and a list under 'List of songs ordered by uses of the word "fuck"' are drastically different creatures. The latter possibility is based on a more concrete set of data - a word count - and doesn't include a judgemental word like "prominent" which is so difficult to define without an outside determination having already been made (which it appears, in reference to songs and this particular topic, hasn't been done). Such a difference is not a minor quibble. I'm still of the opinion that the list as it stands will inherently violate List guideline and WP:OR unless the topic is changed AND an outside study has already been completed and can be cited appropriately. This is beyond the scope of tweaking the criteria and title; this is a ground-up rebuild of a completely new list, set of criteria, and set of data, to say nothing of actually finding a study that has already been done so it can be referenced. My vote for delete stands. HumbleGod 19:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)