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

List of Songs Containing the word Fuck in a Prominent Position

Listcruft, prominent is a subjective word. Creator removed prod. So here it is. Crossmr 04:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete,per the nominate, listcruft — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.54.244.34 (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

commentProminent may be in the title but there are very specific guidelines in the article itself and no way around using "prominent" in the title. --Lord mortekai 04:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment and as pointed out, creating those guidelines is an attempt to control the article and a violation of WP:OWN--Crossmr 04:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created the guidelines because people felt that prominent was not clear enough so I am providing a definition of prominent in this context. This has nothing to do with ownership of the article I merely made the guidelines to make a better case against deletion. --Lord mortekai 04:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you move the article to a better name. Creating guidelines for adding content to an article regardless of the reason is attempting to control the article. That still doesn't address the issue of it being listcruft.--Crossmr 04:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say on WP:OWN that adding guidelines is ownership? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord mortekai (talk • contribs) 04:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the guideline. Controlling content is a violation of WP:OWN. Creating guidelines is an attempt to control the content. They don't have to spell out every single behaviour that could be interpreted as a way to control content.--Crossmr 04:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LIST says that lists are supposed to have clear guidelines as to what is included. It's not OWNing the article at all, unless he's trying to prevent anyone else from changing them. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 05:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Cross. The article name could be changed to settle the ambiguity issue (ie List of songs containing the word Fuck in the title or chorus) but the point remains, this is just an indiscriminate topic for a list. Mangojuice^talk 04:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure that it is indiscriminate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord mortekai (talk • contribs) 04:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please make sure you sign your comments and thread them appropriately. Its indescriminate because its a random, non-notable criteria to base a song list on.--Crossmr 04:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

commentAs I said, no more so indiscriminate than many other similar lists. --Lord mortekai 04:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something got lost in an edit conflict, regarding other lists: The article has to stand on its own. Other poor lists are not justifications for this list.--Crossmr 04:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

commentHow do you figure that it is indiscriminate? If you are asserting that this nature of article does not belong in wikipedia you have a lot more deleting to do. Articles of this kind are what make wikipedia wikipedia, in my opinion and many others'. You fail to bring up a specific guideline when suggesting that it is indiscriminate. --Lord mortekai 04:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no, these articles are not what make wikipedia wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a home for random trivia.--Crossmr 04:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Ridiculous listcruft. Why so many people like creating these weird lists about nothing, I'll never understand. Edit conflict addendum: no, it's the "free encyclopedia" bit that makes wikipedia what it is, not the presence or absence of this list. Opabinia regalis 04:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete oh dear. You might as well have a list of songs featuring the piano. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you certainly enjoy making people miserable don't you; nobody gives a shit about wikipedia as a source of knowledge it's banned at many schools as a citation source. nobody will give two shits about it once you take away any vaguely interesting pieces of information like this --Lord mortekai 05:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA--Crossmr 05:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that does it then. If we delete this, students won't be able to hand in school papers citing our list of songs that use the word fuck. Oh, the humanity. Opabinia regalis 05:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Songs About Hair less indiscriminate than this? --68.227.185.195 05:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't justify this article based on another.--Crossmr 05:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

commentanswer the question — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.185.19 (talk) 05:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What question? Sign your comments and follow proper thread order please. --Crossmr 05:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Acnecruft ~ trialsanderrors 05:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete listcruft. The ridiculous statements from the lone guy defending this article's existence only makes it worse. Danny Lilithborne 06:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Danny Lilithborne and Coredesat. User:Angr 07:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. Chicheley 07:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is no longer at all uncommon, nor is it encyclopaedic. There is little connection to be drawn among songs that use fuck in the title or chorus, so this criterium is a bit too arbitrary to justify the list. If the topic interests you, I'm sure you could compile a list at some Internet forum or another. GassyGuy 08:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I thought this was supposed to be an encyclopedia... Amists 09:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as pointless list, or next up it's ...Songs Containing the word Love..., ...Songs Containing the word Bitch..., Songs Containing the word Kangaroo.... --DaveG12345 10:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Unimportant CommentWe don't already have a kangaroo song list? I'm shocked. GassyGuy 10:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete totally pointless. --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 12:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No encyclopedic value and the whole thing smacks of twelve year olds buying CDs with parental advisory stickers on them to feel tough. Get rid of it! Keresaspa 13:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per GassyGuy. Defined criteria is far too arbitrary to justify this list.--Isotope23 13:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - crap, I mean cruft. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete It's all been said above. This has no place here. -- Alias Flood 16:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Now. Maybe having an additional vote will get rid of a listcruft page faster? >.> --Targetter 22:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per all above. Article does not make a case for its own existence, and author tries to control content. HumbleGod 23:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The only two users contesting the delete have been busy here today, yet one always takes a break when the other one's editing, and both comment in the same non-standard way. FWIW I suspect sockpuppetry at play. HumbleGod 23:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 [1]. Setting parameters for a list = editing an article. It is the recommmended course of action in the Wikipedia: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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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" [2]. "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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Nothing justifies uncivil behaviour on wikipedia. You control your reactions.--Crossmr 15:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]