This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of films ordered by uses of the word fuck[edit]

For the previous VFD discussion of this article, see Talk:List of films ordered by uses of the word fuck.

While I did find it rather funny, I also found it an arbitrary and unencyclopedic list. Radiant_* 11:05, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unmaintainable list. Megan1967 11:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-encylopedic list. utcursch | talk 12:01, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. An extremely long and unmaintainable list. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN. Scimitar 16:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN for the title alone. Oh, and for the fact that someone has THAT much free time. --InShaneee 16:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This has been kept before at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Record for most number of times the word fuck has been used in a film, and is a perfect example of Wikipedia:Unusual articles. —Xezbeth 16:43, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's mildly amusing and a useful reference. Zerbey 18:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep unless there's a problem with the swear words, there's nothing wrong with it, and its quite useful. 203.26.206.129 19:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Revolución 19:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I see no reason to deleted this - SimonP 22:10, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and give Nil by Mouth the Rory Award for The Most Gratuitous Use Of The Word 'Fuck' In A Serious Screenplay. the wub (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, no more unmaintainable than many other lists currently in Wikipedia (List of songs whose title includes geographical names, anyone?) - and sure, we're not going to get all of the movies that use the word fuck in this list, but it can still be expanded into a worthwhile list. Grutness...wha? 22:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• 'keep again please just like last time Yuckfoo 22:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable. Klonimus 23:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's certainly not arbitrary, it's completely objective! It's also encyclopedic and informative. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:18, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, unusual article, useful and interesting. Kappa 23:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, no different from any other good list. Qwghlm 00:24, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, unusual. Thomas Buckwalter 00:03, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This actually has some valid trivia worthiness and is the type of thing that you might have found in the Book of Lists years ago. You have to admire someone who actually spent the time to count all these. However, although it generates a chuckle, I'd recommend changing the phrase "fucks/minute" to something that's less likely to be misinterpreted! ;-) 23skidoo 05:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unverifiable and useless list. --Angr/탉 07:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How in the heck can you call this unverifiable? This is one of the easiest to verify lists on the 'pedia... watch the movies and count. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:50, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Now this is a good piece of reference! Entertaining and well-researched! Wiwaxia 12:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This may turn out to be usefull to at least oen person in the future Karol 12:30, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN and Delete -- I am afraid it is arbitrary and unmaintainable (see biggest omission below. Xoloz 19:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Somebody forgot the Andrew Dice Clay "classic" Ford Fairlane! Xoloz 19:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Ketsuban (is better than you) 20:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unverifiable and unmaintainable. JamesBurns 11:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Methinks you don't know the meaning of the word "unverifiable". Ketsuban (is better than you) 23:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. — Phil Welch 06:05, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- As they say on Meta, "If it's notable and has had an impact on a few thousand people, it's probably in our encyclopedia's domain. That's not to say we lack mainstream topics you'll find in Britannica, World Book, and Encarta... It's just we like to have a little bit of fun at the end of the day." Almafeta 07:10, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, useless, unmaintainable. Pavel Vozenilek 00:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedic. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:58, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
• Keep. This is one thing that makes Wikipedia Wikipedia. -- Toytoy 02:13, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Culturally relevant if perpetually incomplete list Jtkiefer 02:21, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wierd, silly, but quite verifiable, and links are to stuff that's already deemed encyclopedic enough, so going to have to keep it. Kim Bruning 02:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Many people seem to confuse "unmaintainable" with "I wouldn't want to maintain it". OTOH, someone should probably actually try to verify some of these counts and report their findings on the talk page. - dcljr (talk) 09:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Trivial, but amusing and even a bit useful. --Calton | Talk 11:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A useful and unusual resource. --KharBevNor 03:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.