Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuck in different languages

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Fucking redirected. The Land 16:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have got to be foking, naaiing, steeking, qiing, tebedaing, neeking, kuneling, ?????ing, ?????????ing, jebatiing, ебаing, oeing, ma aye loeing, nga loe ma thering, hna ma loeing, diuing, diaoing, caoing, ganing, follaring, cardaring, fotreing, iyoting, jebatiing, fukatiing, karatiing, sevitiing, prcatiing, píchating, kneppeing, knaldeing, neukening, fikiing, nikkumaing, nussimaing, keppimaing, kantoting, vittuing, nussiaing, baisering, foutreing, niqueing, putaining, fourrering, fodering, მოტყნვაing, mot'q'nvaing, fickening, gamaoing, gamoing, gamisiing, Γαμάωing, Γαμώing, Γαμήσιing, choding, lezayening, choding, baszniing, ríðaing, futuaring, ngentoting, Feisighing, fottereing, scopareing, trombareing, ciulareing, chiavareing, stantuffareing, yaruing, kay-yiing, Qu'vatlhing, ssi-baling, pisting, futuereing, pistiing, dulkintiing, kruštiing, feckening, Ng'othruoking, ?? ???ing, pukiing, Punning, onioniing, झव,Zaving, chiknuing, knulleing, puleing, گاییدن ga-yee-daning, jebaćing, pierdolićing, kurwaing, fodering, a futeing, ебатьing, ебатьсяing, Dàiriching, јебатиing, jebaťing, drbaťing, cogering, culearing, picharing, tiraring, singaring, tiraring, pisaring, chingaring, cacharing, jodering, knullaing, Okkalaamaing, Denguing, เย็ด yeting, sikmeking, چودناing, đụing, địting, đéoing, שטופּןing, fucking kidding me. Wow, that took a long time to type. Unencyclopaedic listcruft. --Rory096 10:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, original research. – Chacor 10:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Fuck, the "in other languages" on the left should cover this. Good article though. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment some of the contents of this page could be beneficial to the "in other languages" of Fuck, as it is rather lacking. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Fucking Delete - the bigger problem here (to me) is that this is a very severe case of WP:OR. What the fuck are the chances that the author knows all these languages well enough to be sure the correct connotation is there? I bet half these terms would just make you look like a fucking idiot if you tried to use them in the same way. My Alt Account 10:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - oh, this is a legitimate nomination. Sorry for tagging this with a speedy. MER-C 10:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Unencyclopedic and OR thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Fuck, merge anything that isn't already there if it can be sourced. VegaDark 10:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This The language thing and everything can be sourced. This is an early stuff done by everybody in Wikipedia, [1], you still can found it it older version of wikipedia article "fuck", this is totally not an original research, so it is not a original research, not offese to Wikipedia:No original research policy.--218.186.8.10 10:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Wish I could agree with you, but the info in that link doesn't do anything to support 97% of the material in this article. My Alt Account 11:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The link change already--218.186.9.2 11:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Uh, that's just a mirror of Wikipedia. WP isn't a reliable source. --Rory096 11:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  This is an important research, it is everybody's work, you can find this article in year 2005 middle "fuck" article, I really hope it can keep at here. --From the original editor of this editor.--218.186.9.2 11:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete completely unsourced and WP:OR, if sources can be found then the more common languages should be merged and redirected into Fuck. Best AFD nomination statement ever, btw. james^(talk) 10:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Fucking delete. At least the Czech words are correct (there are more) but WP is not dictionary. Pavel Vozenilek 11:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Peta 13:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge with Fuck. Preferrably delete as original research, it looks like it's been taken straight from a book and it's totally unsourced. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 13:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT a translation dictionary. Guy 13:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, please en wiki is not your English - (foriegn language) dictionary, violates WP:NOT. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 13:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, do not merge or redirect anything. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We don't have and won't have dog in different languages. Words that tickle kids' sense of humor are not an exception. Weregerbil 14:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable. It might be useful when travelling, but scarcely material for an encyclopedia. Legis 14:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. Perhaps some of this should be merged into Fuck itself, especially the ones that show widely distributed roots, like the jebat'- shared by most Slavic languages, as well as Sanskrit (yabhati) but I generally tend to agree that Wiktionary should be the go-to place for pure lists of synonyms in different languages. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this is not WP:V and violates WP:NOT and {apparently} WP:NOR. I suppose anything that does get verified could be merged to Fuck... but only if it gets verifed.--Isotope23 16:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Get the fuck outta here (lol in how many AFD nominations can I say that?).UberCryxic 16:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.