1963:. What this list conveys to users is just what it says. It doesn't presume to say which airport is best or has the longest waiting time or fewest flight delays or anything other than which airport has the most passenger traffic. Similarly, this list doesn't prove which movie is the best or worst or even filthiest, just most 'fuck'ed up. Seeing as 'fuck' is, arguably, the most controversial and commonly accepted as the worst word utterable in the English language, it deserves a list to let people know which movies use it to get a message across by containing the word much more than most other movies. While I agree that the number of 'fuck's in a movie does not define it, it's still no accident that these movies have such an abundance of the word. Writers know that it has an impact on an audience and can be greatly used to help character development. All that said, I will suggest that this list be enhanced to include trends such as directors/writers with most movies on the list and which movies have oscar nominations/awards.
544:. This article is merely a compilation of statistics that hardly reflect the relevance of the word "fuck" used in films. The statistics is reflected even more strongly with the existence of the bar graphs. What is the criteria for inclusion? The article says, "This is a list of non-pornographic films containing at least 100 spoken uses of the word "fuck" (or one of its derivatives), ordered by the number of such uses." Why doesn't pornography count? Why is it 100? Why isn't it 200 or 50? In addition, there certainly are films that are known for excess profanity, but many of the ones on the list are just compiled because of their count, which may or may not have any relevance. Films like
2033:
I certainly would use this list. I realize I'm basing my argument on my own example, but I think I represent many others. However, if you must delete it, please at least keep the list somewhere else, which I think you want to. Erik, I think the reason we have never seen this list in any other source is that most sources wouldn't want to 'dirty' themselves with such a statistic, which I know wiki doesn't worry about. Maybe Maxim or
Rolling Stone could pull off publishing a list like this, but few others would dare to.
954:
films. There's no encyclopedic reason to provide a statistical analysis of films that have not been highlighted as ones that "most frequently use the word" 'fuck'". There is no real-world significance or relevance to many of these entries' number of f-words uttered; in nearly all the cases, the excess profanity are not what makes the film known (with exceptions like
2138:: The only of the five points that are mentioned that applies is number 1 (Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics ). In this case, I disagree that this is a loose association between the subjects, as, again, the association is clearly defined and, given that multiple websites are dedicated to statistics like this, are of significant cultural impact.
1129:
The list is obviously incomplete yet it ranks the films. The only useful information is what comes before the list, which is not that well written "use of profanity in film was always controversial" seems POV and very vague, when was the last time some critic flipped out because a film had a high "fuck" count. I suggest making an article that covers
2673:
general. The concern of the article is the most frequent uses, i.e. the top of the list, not the bottom, and the cut-off point is a consequence that is dealt with by consensus." It is not original research to restrict the article size for readability and to suit 'frequently' or whatever this article is named. Erik, if you want to make
97:
143:
138:
133:
128:
123:
117:
110:
103:
2494:
For god's sake, did you even read the discussion?!?!? 1. Entertaining is not a reason
Knowledge (XXG) is not for entertainment. 2. Nobody said it isn't well sourced, just unencyclopedic and 3. Who said anything about censorship? I was talking about creating an article called "The word "fuck" in film.
2121:
Okay then, I will provide a point by point counterargument of those. I am not, however, gonna argue over interpretation of these guidelines and policies in great detail. Many of the
Knowledge (XXG) policies are open to multiple interpretations anyway (as is clear from the vigorous discussions here at
2032:
I have to disagree that the actual word count is irrelevant. While I've never done any formal research on the subject, I find myself constantly referring back to this list to compare movies, etc. If I ever did do a research project (one which would acknowledge wiki as a veritable source), I believe
1738:
Explain to me how it is encyclopedic, an encyclopedia gives research information. I seriously doubt that anybody is going to research how many "fucks" there are in a film, they might research profanity in film, which is a useful topic, but number of "fucks" is just trivial statistics. This article is
1597:
I have no problem with the word, but my argument has been based on the false presentation of this list. Films can be noted for their excess usage of the f-word (I only say 'f-word' for the sake of being amicable here), but please review the resources used to cite the majority of the films. They are
1331:
is notable, but a list of films using the f-word a lot is not notable because it's a mere compilation of indiscriminate statistics through editors' arbitrary criteria that do not offer the real-world context (as in sourced analysis) of films that most frequently use the word "fuck". I am arguing for
1311:
In reply to Erik - yes, it does have real world context, of course it does - film is part of the real world, last time I checked. And there are many many lists on
Knowledge (XXG), and they are an accepted kind of content, so, if you want, vent your opinions about lists at an appropriate forum, rather
1128:
The word fuck is arguably the most interesting and controversial word in the
English language and profanity in general is obviously notable. As I have suggested, a prose article seems to be the most reasonable compromise we can think of. It is very hard to assert what film is notable and what isn't.
782:
about the AFD process and those involved with whom you disagree. AFDs are recurring because consensus can evolve. Also, I'm not sure why the article's failure to conform to policies and guidelines is a reason not to take this
Knowledge (XXG) article seriously. Please feel free to elaborate on your
1421:
It's not encyclopedic. There's no core topic at hand. Look at the so-called sources -- they're not even part of a specific ranking, they're just family measurements that have been drawn together to give the false impression of ranking. And like I've said, most of these films are not known for the
1336:
of two notable subjects -- film and profanity -- in a list form that fails to establish itself as notable. Review the sources used for the multitude of these entries; they don't specifically mention the frequency of the f-word used. Editors compiled the bits of information together to make it look
701:
per above. I remember
Entertainment Weekly used to do counts like this on films like Glengarry Glen Ross (?), and it's kind of funny that people are watching a movie and tallying things like this. A "'fuck' count" indeed. Ironically, if this gets vandalized, it'll be something sweet, on the order
1359:
Well, looks like we disagree there - profanity has been closely linked with film ratings systems and given how it has been discussed I would be surprised if someone hasn't quantified some sort of list somewhere and (shock! horror!) it may not be online. I know people who have worked in the field of
953:
known because of the number of f-words uttered. The entries fail to be topical, especially considering the resources are family-concern resources in which profanity is part of their breakdown of the film, as opposed to newspapers or magazines that may solely have coverage about excess profanity in
357:
Unlike your example, which has a set ranking of 30 airports, the word "frequently" is unnecessarily flexible here. Why not list 200 films? Why not 50? Where is the criteria set? We, as editors, certainly should not profess to do that. In addition, the previous AFDs are not relevant here. Some
2614:
1. The list you mention is different because that actually ranks the cities. 2. These aren't "unusually profane films", these are just films that happen to use one profane word many times. 3. Nobody said it gives rankings, the way the info is put together is OR. 4. Well yeah, that is pure original
2327:
Please read the discussion before voting, it seems that the deleters are always relevant to the topic, while everybody who wishes to keep just comes in and does something like "Keep, obviously notable" without reading through the discussion. If you'd actually read the arguments, than you'd realize
1098:
Alright, I understand what you mean now. But the list doesn't necessarily address a real-world understanding of the topic. There are multiple films ranging from the well-known to the lesser-known, so there's no specific insight given. I've suggested a prose article based on profanity in film as
2689:
means this article should not contain only statistics, so go ahead and add prose to it, which I've done a little. Steve and Orange Mike, there is no synthesis because no positions are pushed; the numbers are presented, nothing is concluded from them. Vegaswikian, if you can find sources for those
2207:
made famous because of the fact they most frequently use the word "fuck"? Some of them are, but many on the list are drawn from the family measurements resources. In addition, the stats are "long and sprawling" because of the unnecessary "fucks per minute"-related columns that are irrelevant to
449:
That article chooses the 30 highest ranking airports because the sources its uses lists 30. This seems appropriate to me. Here, however, we're just picking out our own criteria. It's nothing to do with censorship -- I wholeheartedly support articles that cover vulgar content and only hope that
284:
This is what I said on the talk page: "This article has useful information, but I don't think it's very good as a list, it is never going to be complete for two reasons: People have different views on what makes a film notable enough to be in the list; different sources have different numbers, so
1165:
I see no reason for a list. Ask yourselves, what does this article give to people who are researching the usage of "fuck" in film? A good chuckle maybe. A prose article would add information and it would be easier to find sources, I'm sure many people wrote essays on profanity in film, finding a
59:
is not, by itself, a reason to delete this article. The rule prohibits "long and sprawling lists of statistics" because they "reduce the readability and neatness of our articles", but allows "using infoboxes or tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists." No-one has argued that this
2013:
That's why we have suggested a prose article, nobody ever said that the word fuck in film is not notable, we just said it's unencyclopedic. Think of someone doing a research project, the number of "fucks" would be irrelevant, what would be relevant is, which movies caused controversy (ex. South
1505:
is somewhere on that list, too. As for the number of 100 spoken uses: this particular limit is no real argument for or against the article itself. A new government normally receives a 100 day period from the press to settle and start working effectively. Only after that time you will find first
212:
Completely unencyclopedic content. This belongs on uncyclopedia, not here. Its been nominated several times before, the links are found on the talk page. Most of the keep votes use reasoning like "This is a fun page" or "Pages like this make me smile." These are not valid reasons to keep an
2672:
Each entry being famous for having a lot of 'fuck's is a sufficient, but not necessary, condition for inclusion. The list is nowhere near 'limitness', JJJ999. I quote myself that "The lower bound of the list being arbitrary is irrelevant to this discussion, and applies to all top/most lists in
149:
1620:
it into this list. Perhaps a citation could be found reflecting that this particular film is known for excessive f-word usage, but many of the listed films rely on generic family measurements. It's certainly not a specifically published list of films that fall under this criteria. Hope you
1958:
With some of the other lists on wiki, this one should stay. I first came across this list looking for exactly what it contained. While I'm not using my example as a defense, it just goes to show that this is exactly the kind of information people look for on wiki. Take the example of
1360:
censorship. In any case, I may go and find some more commentary on this myself, but as I have a life and volunteer work in and of itself has to come after a few other things, I have no idea wehn that will happen. I'll put it on my todo list if this article survives the AfD.cheers,
1268:
The list is hardly convenient because we have the chosen cut-off of 100 films. There's no true indication of the scale of films that "most frequently use the word 'fuck'". In addition, these films are hardly signified by the number of a certain word uttered. It still remains
91:
289:
which discusses the usage of the word in film and we can merge some of the info from this list." I stand by what I said, the list is not going to work but an article might. Nominator, to a certain degree I agree with you, but the word fuck is prominent in film, so either
1496:
Film as a medium of popular culture frequently uses provocating measures to attract attention or draw a character in a certain way. This is not different in other popular art forms and also for e.g. advertisement (like the fashion campaigns photographed by
1043:
that there could be other reasons besides what you mistakenly perceive. In addition, what is the notable subject? There is no real-world context provided about this list of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" -- the entries, most of which are
807:
I don't want to insult anybody, but I doubt this article will ever be deleted, since so many people find it amusing, and without any reason, vote keep, as long as these people do that, this incomplete list that violates several policies will most likely
1166:
direct count is more difficult though. Also the
English-centered, the word "fuck" doesn't exist in other languages, and translations aren't usually accurate. Also in most languages there is not one word like "fuck" that caused controversy in media.--
178:
173:
826:
The AFD process is not supposed to be a voting process, so a few substantial arguments on one side could outweigh a large number of insubstantial arguments on the other side. It's a matter of providing valid counterpoints to others' points.
564:
because of the usage of this word, aside from a handful of examples. And that handful is not substantial enough to warrant a stand-alone list. Such films with excess profanity ought to be explored with prose commentary in an article like
235:
use of the word "fuck" in media is quite encyclopedic and generates press, controversy, and even litigation. And while this article perhaps is less "high brow" than most, it's certainly more so than all the various
American Idol also-rans.
182:
165:
884:
various resources to give the impression of valid backing. There's no encyclopedic value established by any of the resources -- merely a mish-mash of figures presented in an indiscriminate and inappropriately statistical directory.
2351:
What we're trying to say, is that the information that this article has, has been made up. If I made an article called "List of films by alphabetic order of last name of first-billed actor" it could be true and referenced, but not
323:. This is exactly what makes Knowledge (XXG) different, as the number of topics we can cover is much larger than that of other encyclopedias. Also, this article has not been nominated "several times" before. It has been nominated
409:
The article wasn't nominated because it's offensive (Knowledge (XXG) is not censored), it was nominated because it is an incomplete list with trivial information that should be incorporated into encyclopedic text rather than a
319:, the article is well sourced, it does not draw any conclusions (and thus does not synthesize new information). It is merely a list which does not violate any Knowledge (XXG) policy, not more than other lists, like for example
2677:, then create it to complement this. These things can exist simultaneously, and Collectonian, while prose may be a 'better' way to go about it, that's not a reason to delete the list. Since we're not out to state the absolute
1984:
copies directly from the existing rankings (which tops at 30) in its sources. Look beyond this particular article -- there is no such existing ranking of f-word count. It is a compilation of family measurements that are
2132:". I disagree that this list is confusing as it is accompanied by a clear introductory text that explains what the articles is listing. Also the criteria for inclusions, while arbitrary, are cleary defined and mentioned.
2399:
No I am not mistaken, whoever wrote this article made it up, that's a fact, not an opinion. Show me a reliable source that has a list like this. Or show me a site that lists movies by the non-existent phrase "fucks per
2633:
per Erik's notes. While the list certainly made me laugh, it is incompletely and is missing many films which are known for their use of the word because of the lack of available sourcing beyond IMDB due to their age
1724:". No it is not "undoubtedly unencyclopedic". Some people here argue it is unencyclopedic, whereas others say it is encyclopedic and thus suitable for Knowledge (XXG). That is exactly the discussion we are having. --
745:
Some people are taking this project too seriously. It appears that this has been debated numerous times in the past and the result was keep on each occasion. Nominating this again is attempting to game the system.
362:
th appearance at AFD; consensus can evolve over time, or better reasoning for deletion can be presented if it was not clear in previous attempts. See further rationale for deletion in my recommendation below.
169:
2302:
these so-called rankings, with these films having no relevance with each other. It's inane to assume that the number of f-words used in a film intrinsically connects them all into an encyclopedic list.
1574:
I don't want to get personal here but the way you respond to my arguments makes me think you first of all have a personal problem with the word "fuck". I know this term is provoking, and this debate is
2638:
anyone?). I think the idea of a prose article is a good one, though maybe expanded to the use of all profanity in film, which is a far better way to discuss the controversy, shock, etc it can induce.
1099:
that would be a perfectly reasonable topic for
Knowledge (XXG), but here, it's just number-crunching. The number of f-words in most of these films have no bearing on its fame, whatever it may have. —
161:
79:
1753:
non-NPOV is not a reason to delete. If you think a prose article would be better, I'm all with you. Just move the content to an appropriate title and rewrite it. No need to delete the material.
1706:
No! references, notability, NPOV, encyclopedic content are the four main things. Now that we're at it, it's not notable as a list, as a prose article sure, but the list gives no good content.--
2520:. There is no requirement that each item in a list of superlatives be notable because of the list's subject. All that is required is that the subject of the list be notable. For example,
946:
No, it's not. Why shouldn't a pornographic film count? Why are we going with films where one may say, "Oh, that's unusual"? For some films, this isn't the case, as with raunchy comedies.
2698:
2664:
2647:
2624:
2597:
2533:
2504:
2485:
2468:
2409:
2375:
2361:
2337:
2318:
2261:
2237:
2223:
2194:
2157:
2112:
2076:
2042:
2023:
2004:
1972:
1950:
1826:
1781:
1748:
1733:
1715:
1680:
1636:
1592:
1567:
1515:
1484:
1470:
1441:
1412:
1375:
1352:
1322:
1306:
1292:
1263:
1243:
1229:
1214:
1194:
1175:
1114:
1093:
1071:
1026:
997:
977:
937:
921:
900:
867:
842:
817:
798:
773:
755:
733:
715:
691:
651:
633:
605:
584:
528:
498:
465:
440:
419:
400:
378:
344:
311:
274:
245:
226:
73:
2014:
Park), which actors are known for taking roles with alot of swearing (ex. Joe Pesci) or directors that make movies with alot of profanity (ex. Tarantino, Scorcese). A list doesn't help.--
1248:
A list is an extremely convenient place to get an immediate idea of the number and type of films involved. The FPM is fascinating. Many articles have both prose and lsit forks. cheers,
880:
to be non-pornographic and to be in the top 100. Why not pornographic? Why not the top 50 or the top 200? The topic of the article was created with subjectively decided criteria
205:
1078:
Sorry I meant censorship in the world with various film classifications etc. not wikipedia. Censorship and film ratings are highly controversial areas in cinema studies. cheers,
917:
2525:
428:
Knowledge (XXG) would not work if incompleteness was an objection to the existence of articles. This article/list deserves time to mature, just like everything else.
23:
1981:
1960:
388:
355:"This is a list of non-pornographic films containing at least 100 spoken uses of the word "fuck" (or one of its derivatives), ordered by the number of such uses."
320:
2542:. The list points the reader researching profanity in film towards unusually profane films. Also, the list gives evidence as to trends in profanity over time.
2272:
This is a list of non-pornographic films containing at least 100 spoken uses of the word "fuck" (or one of its derivatives), ordered by the number of such uses.'
483:
391:
choose the 30 highest ranking airports? There is no other reason than the (in some eyes) offensive topic that this article is so often nominated for deletion. --
2555:
2456:
2444:
1501:). To have a special list about something like that can be quite useful, e.g. to demonstrate the use of language over time. I would have thought that
2452:
2448:
592:
Per my last comment and Erik's. An article would certainly work much better than a list, and if there isn't enough info, we can always merge into
949:
Good point, but the examples you've provided are known for these topics. Like I've said in my recommendation to delete, many of these films are
392:
1616:
And that is all it says. It doesn't make the assertion that it ranks so highly among films with f-word usage. We took that number and
1327:
Excuse me, but you and I are part of the real world, but we don't have our own articles. The films themselves are notable, the word
17:
560:
they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic." The large, large majority of the films in this list are
2255:
Well-defined non-arbitrary inclusion criteria, topic whose notability is proven beyond reasonable doubt, scrupulously referenced.
2128:: The only of the five points that are mentioned that applies is number 4 (Statistics). The first sentence of that section reads:
1791:
552:
film are films whose profanity has been noticed, but many others in the list don't have that relevance. This would qualify as an
1297:
Personally I think that there should be a separate project like Wiktionary or Wikiquote for stats, something like "Wikistats".--
1540:-- the large majority of these entries do not fall in the so-called category of, "Wow, they sure do the f-word a lot." It's a
1371:
1259:
1089:
1022:
2298:. Most of these films were not previously identified as films that ranked high for using the f-word, and editors here have
2130:"Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles.
2070:
1787:
285:
it's actually kind of pointless to have sources, but if we don't, it's OR. What I suggest doing is making an article called
1671:
Nobody has once said that it's not referenced or not notable, we just said it's unencyclopedic, which it undoubtedly is.--
1320:
1227:
1192:
925:
254:
2716:
1810:
1454:
299:
286:
43:
1931:
1219:
Because the list format is completely separate from that. Feel free to make that article; no-one is stopping you. --
2418:... Having looked for suitable sources to back it up, I do agree that the article topic is completely made up. User:
2328:
that nobody says the topic is not notable, we're saying that the way the information is presented is not notable. --
984:
I wouldn't say why porno films aren't included is obvious, there are a few movies that are well known for swearing,
912:
Lists of superlatives must have cutoffs. The presence of such a cutoff does not make the list unencyclopedic. See
642:
I'm for creating a new article using a small percentage of the info here, so closer to delete than merge, I guess.--
2314:
2219:
2108:
2000:
1632:
1598:
family measurements, which do not comment on the unique aspect of the f-word being used. For instance, looking at
1563:
1437:
1348:
1288:
1110:
1067:
973:
896:
838:
794:
629:
580:
461:
374:
1880:) about the word as used in films could be well-referenced and worthwhile — but it should be proper prose, not a
988:
holds a Guinness world record, but I don't see why most of the others are more notable than pornographic films.--
913:
2715:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1314:
1221:
1186:
396:
241:
42:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
2579:
1011:- notable subject - clear issue with censorship implications etc. Spacepotato sums it up well above. cheers,
2643:
2521:
2038:
1968:
1606:"The film ranks among those featuring the most occurrences of the word 'fuck' in a fiction movie, with 428."
1866:"there is no such existing ranking of f-word count. It is a compilation of family measurements that are
1739:
useless for research, only useful because it is a fun page, but that isn't what Knowledge (XXG) is for.--
2593:
2481:
2464:
2419:
2389:
2171:
1904:
1889:
1836:
1799:
1758:
1694:
1657:
933:
863:
2674:
2639:
2569:
2563:
2558:. (Even if they were, this would be a reason to delete the FPM column, not to delete the entire list.)
1814:
1202:
566:
1332:
this particular list topic, not all list topics in general, and I've explained clearly that this is a
24:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"
2443:
per above discussions. I suppose we can wait for the rest of this series of articles with names like
1464:
686:
436:
268:
220:
2620:
2500:
2415:
2405:
2367:
2357:
2333:
2229:
2190:
2149:
2059:
2019:
1822:
1777:
1744:
1725:
1711:
1676:
1600:
1476:
1302:
1239:
1210:
1171:
993:
813:
769:
751:
729:
711:
647:
601:
494:
415:
336:
307:
237:
69:
2691:
1453:
Please note that I am not proposing this deletion as not sourced, or not notable. Rather, as per
2371:
2233:
2153:
2034:
1964:
1729:
1588:
1511:
1480:
1365:
1253:
1083:
1016:
524:
340:
2366:"We" understand what you are saying. "We" just don't agree and do consider this encyclopedic. --
1939:
1786:
Ok... always interesting. As I said, I'm all with you if you were to rewrite it as prose. Maybe
672:
2063:
1938:
their association with the word "fuck" and this article is almost entirely (well-intentioned)
1408:
98:
Articles for deletion/List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" (10th nomination)
36:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
508:
144:
Articles for deletion/List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" (9th nomination)
139:
Articles for deletion/List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" (8th nomination)
134:
Articles for deletion/List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" (7th nomination)
129:
Articles for deletion/List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" (6th nomination)
124:
Articles for deletion/List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" (5th nomination)
118:
Articles for deletion/List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" (4th nomination)
111:
Articles for deletion/List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" (3rd nomination)
104:
Articles for deletion/List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" (2nd nomination)
2660:
2589:
2477:
2460:
2385:
2167:
1885:
1832:
1795:
1754:
1690:
1653:
1498:
929:
918:
List of National Football League quarterbacks who have thrown at least 100 career touchdowns
859:
2686:
2295:
2291:
2287:
2145:
2141:
2135:
2125:
2094:
2090:
2086:
1927:
1769:
1617:
1549:
1545:
1541:
1525:
1423:
1333:
1274:
1270:
1053:
1049:
1040:
881:
779:
668:
664:
553:
541:
537:
516:
61:
56:
2695:
1614:"At least 428 "f" words (with at least 3 used sexually, plus some similar slang terms)..."
1458:
680:
432:
262:
214:
2381:
2286:
to assume that a list of films that frequently use the f-word is encyclopedic. It fails
2163:
2062:(thank you, Special:Random) is. Incidentally, this page is fun and makes my smile. Fuck.
1881:
676:
671:
violation. I also feel that due to the need to create (arbitrary criteria, etc.) it is a
618:
above; are you favoring either action, or one over the other? Just asking for clarity. —
1609:
1337:
like these rankings really do exist, when in reality they established them themselves. —
2616:
2496:
2427:
2401:
2353:
2329:
2310:
2256:
2215:
2186:
2104:
2066:
2015:
1996:
1912:
1873:
1818:
1773:
1740:
1707:
1672:
1628:
1559:
1433:
1344:
1298:
1284:
1235:
1234:
But what is the point of the list? What meaningful content does it give a researcher?--
1206:
1167:
1106:
1063:
989:
969:
892:
834:
809:
790:
765:
747:
725:
707:
643:
625:
597:
576:
490:
457:
411:
370:
303:
65:
2678:
512:
1584:
1507:
1361:
1249:
1079:
1012:
520:
2685:
should be on it. The list being incomplete is also a call for editing and research.
1989:
predisposed as one of the ranks of films that most frequently use the word "fuck". —
150:
Articles for deletion/List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" (again)
2529:
1926:
per well-reasoned arguments to do so. Having lists of things is indeed useful, but
1870:
predisposed as one of the ranks of films that most frequently use the word 'fuck'."
1864:
Amending my original comment in light of Erik's very valid point, made below, that
1404:
556:
per this: "...there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous
199:
1132:
A) What different profanity is used in movies, including a sub-section on "fuck".
353:
It may not draw its own conclusions, but it certainly presents its own criteria:
2656:
2085:
Feel free to respond to the counterpoints provided by the other side, regarding
2423:
2393:
2175:
1943:
1908:
1893:
1840:
1803:
1762:
1698:
1661:
2690:
words, then go ahead. The Dominator, if you want to use info here, that's a
2304:
2282:
mistake the notability of films in general and the notability word the word
2209:
2098:
1990:
1622:
1553:
1427:
1338:
1278:
1100:
1057:
963:
886:
828:
784:
619:
570:
451:
364:
92:
Articles for deletion/List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"
2274:
We the editors are establishing that criteria. In addition, the topic is
1534:
they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic."
1689:
Then improve it. References and notablility are the only real concerns.
1422:
handful of f-words uttered aside from a few, making it an inappropriate
519:. Would support merging the info to a more suitable page per Dominator.
1651:
per Carlossuarez46 and others. Referenced, and is a notable phenomenon.
1502:
2602:
6 is the general argument and the rest are arguments in support of it.
1530:"There is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous
2058:- this is ridiculous - this is encyclopedic content, just as much as
2568:
This has nothing to do with this list. Anyone is free to start the
1524:
Having a list of phone number is useful, too. However, please read
858:—it's an encyclopedic list with a well-defined inclusion criterion.
2655:- same as most lists of this sort, unencyclopaedic, and limitless.
1876:
directly above, a new article (or maybe initially new section in
2709:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
2578:. In the absence of supporting arguments, this is no more than
2283:
1877:
1580:
1328:
593:
295:
1457:
I am saying it is "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia."
1142:
films that are known for its excessive swearing, for example,
55:, default to keep. I'd like to note that the frequently-cited
876:
The criteria for including a film has been determined by the
2518:
These films are not notable for their use of the word "fuck"
2203:
How do you respond to the fact that most of these films are
1201:
Nobody have given a good reason to prefer the list over the
2552:
The computation of "fuck"s per minute is original research
2185:
It makes me smile too, your reason for keep is what now?--
569:, tracing the history of vulgar language used in cinema. —
2681:, it's okay that the list is missing some films that you
2534:
List of the largest urban agglomerations in North America
2514:. I'd like to rebut a number of arguments for deletion.
2457:
List of films that most frequently use the word "Britney"
922:
List of the largest urban agglomerations in North America
2524:
is not especially large but is legitimately included in
195:
191:
187:
2476:
Its entertaining and well sourced, Wiki isnt censored.
2445:
List of films that most frequently use the word "shag"
909:
The reason for avoiding pornographic films is obvious.
162:
List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"
80:
List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"
2453:
List of films that most frequently use the word "sex"
2449:
List of films that most frequently use the word "the"
1312:
than using it as an incentive to delete one list. --
2526:
List of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada
1135:
B) The reception and criticisms of profanity in film
335:. I guess it was about time for a new nomination. --
46:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1934:. The list entries, on the whole, are not notable
2719:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1048:known for excess profanity, are compiled into a
1039:about wanting to censor this article, so please
2546:The rankings in the list are original research
2532:is not famous for its size but is included in
1982:World's busiest airports by passenger traffic
1961:World's busiest airports by passenger traffic
389:World's busiest airports by passenger traffic
321:World's busiest airports by passenger traffic
8:
2495:Please read the discussion before posting.--
1722:it's unencyclopedic, which it undoubtedly is
1056:. It fails to provide encyclopedic value. —
515:(and amusing), but it seems to run afoul of
1942:on the part of its creators. All the best,
2540:This list is useless for research purposes
2228:Thats reason for cleanup, not deletion. --
1794:would be plausibly circumscribed topics?
484:list of Film-related deletion discussions
358:articles eventually get deleted at their
1583:mentions film, but not phone numbers. --
482:: This debate has been included in the
88:
60:article is unreadable or confusing, so
2278:notable beyond reasonable doubt -- do
2148:point 4 and is therefore redundant. --
1544:of family measurements to provide an
1506:comments about success or failure. --
327:times before, of which four ended in
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
986:South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut
450:they offer something encyclopedic. —
2548:. The list does not give rankings.
86:
1928:Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory
1792:The word "fuck" in popular culture
31:
2694:, not delete, for GFDL reasons. –
1621:understand what I'm getting at. —
1579:about phone numbers. The article
928:(a featured list), and so forth.
2270:Yes, the criteria is arbitrary:
1475:I understand, but I disagree. --
724:"It is funny" is not a reason.--
1604:, it has a sentence that says,
1403:Sourced, encylopedic article.
261:a good reason to keep things.
1:
2562:We should have an article on
1277:with no real-world context. —
926:List of major opera composers
764:What's your reason to keep?--
2699:09:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
2665:05:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
2648:03:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
2625:00:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
2598:00:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
2554:. Trivial computations are
2505:21:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
2486:21:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
2469:07:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
2410:14:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
2376:07:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
2362:23:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
2338:14:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
2319:13:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
2262:09:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
2238:07:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
2224:21:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
2208:this so-called list topic. —
2195:14:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
2158:20:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
2113:13:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
2077:09:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
2043:10:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
2024:14:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
2005:13:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
1973:08:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
1951:16:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1827:16:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1788:The word "fuck" in the media
1782:16:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1749:16:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1734:16:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1716:15:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1681:14:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1637:22:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
1593:22:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
1568:13:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1516:12:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1485:16:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1471:11:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1442:13:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1413:08:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1376:13:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1353:13:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1323:08:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1307:05:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1293:03:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1264:03:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1244:02:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1230:02:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1215:02:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1195:01:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1176:01:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1115:00:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1094:00:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1072:00:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1027:00:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
998:00:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
978:00:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
938:23:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
901:23:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
868:23:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
843:23:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
818:23:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
799:22:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
774:22:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
756:22:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
734:21:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
716:21:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
692:21:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
652:21:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
634:21:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
606:21:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
585:21:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
529:20:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
499:20:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
466:21:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
441:20:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
420:21:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
401:21:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
379:21:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
345:20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
312:20:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
275:20:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
246:19:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
227:19:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
74:12:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
1899:The current list should be
2736:
2576:The list is unencyclopedic
1932:indiscriminate information
1809:I was thinking more like
914:List of highest mountains
64:would not seem to apply.
2712:Please do not modify it.
1872:As per my exchange with
39:Please do not modify it.
1831:Both sound good to me.
1811:The word "Fuck" in film
679:) violation as well. --
554:inappropriate directory
300:The word "fuck" in film
287:The word "fuck" in film
2300:personally established
1930:, nor a collection of
85:AfDs for this article:
53:no consensus to delete
2556:not original research
2572:article at any time.
1550:statistical analysis
1156:Glengarry Glenn Ross
1054:statistical purposes
2060:Kitashinchi Station
1546:indiscriminate list
1316:Anonymous Dissident
1223:Anonymous Dissident
1188:Anonymous Dissident
614:You also mentioned
255:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
1768:Please read this:
1455:WP:Deletion Policy
1319:
1226:
1191:
704:The Sound of Music
2675:Profanity in film
2570:profanity in film
2564:profanity in film
2414:I was talking to
1815:Profanity in film
1608:Its reference is
1313:
1220:
1203:Profanity in film
1185:
1041:assume good faith
783:recommendation. —
780:assume good faith
567:Profanity in film
501:
487:
331:and two ended in
213:article around.
22:(Redirected from
2727:
2714:
2307:
2259:
2212:
2101:
1993:
1948:
1625:
1556:
1499:Oliviero Toscani
1461:
1430:
1341:
1317:
1281:
1224:
1189:
1103:
1060:
1035:Nobody has said
966:
889:
831:
787:
689:
683:
622:
573:
488:
478:
454:
367:
265:
217:
203:
185:
41:
27:
2735:
2734:
2730:
2729:
2728:
2726:
2725:
2724:
2723:
2717:deletion review
2710:
2380:Then "you" are
2352:encyclopedic.--
2305:
2257:
2210:
2144:: Redirects to
2099:
1991:
1944:
1623:
1554:
1467:
1459:
1428:
1339:
1315:
1279:
1222:
1187:
1101:
1058:
964:
887:
829:
785:
687:
681:
620:
571:
452:
393:195.169.224.219
365:
271:
263:
223:
215:
176:
160:
157:
155:
152:
120:
113:
106:
94:
83:
51:The result was
44:deletion review
37:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2733:
2731:
2722:
2721:
2704:
2702:
2701:
2667:
2650:
2612:
2611:
2610:
2609:
2608:
2607:
2606:
2605:
2604:
2603:
2584:
2583:
2580:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
2573:
2559:
2549:
2543:
2537:
2508:
2507:
2489:
2488:
2471:
2438:
2437:
2436:
2435:
2434:
2433:
2432:
2431:
2430:
2345:
2344:
2343:
2342:
2341:
2340:
2322:
2321:
2265:
2264:
2249:
2248:
2247:
2246:
2245:
2244:
2243:
2242:
2241:
2240:
2198:
2197:
2183:
2182:
2181:
2180:
2179:
2139:
2133:
2116:
2115:
2080:
2079:
2052:
2051:
2050:
2049:
2048:
2047:
2046:
2045:
2027:
2026:
2008:
2007:
1976:
1975:
1953:
1920:
1919:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1915:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1858:
1857:
1856:
1855:
1854:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1844:
1703:
1702:
1684:
1683:
1666:
1665:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1571:
1570:
1519:
1518:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1465:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1416:
1415:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1273:compiled in a
1198:
1197:
1163:
1162:
1136:
1133:
1130:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1075:
1074:
1030:
1029:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
982:
981:
980:
947:
941:
940:
910:
904:
903:
871:
870:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
821:
820:
802:
801:
776:
759:
758:
739:
738:
737:
736:
719:
718:
695:
694:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
637:
636:
609:
608:
587:
531:
502:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
446:
445:
444:
443:
423:
422:
404:
403:
382:
381:
348:
347:
314:
279:
278:
277:
269:
238:Carlossuarez46
221:
210:
209:
156:
154:
153:
148:
146:
141:
136:
131:
126:
121:
116:
114:
109:
107:
102:
100:
95:
90:
87:
84:
82:
77:
49:
48:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2732:
2720:
2718:
2713:
2707:
2706:
2705:
2700:
2697:
2693:
2688:
2684:
2680:
2676:
2671:
2668:
2666:
2662:
2658:
2654:
2651:
2649:
2645:
2641:
2637:
2636:Harlem Nights
2632:
2629:
2628:
2627:
2626:
2622:
2618:
2617:The Dominator
2601:
2600:
2599:
2595:
2591:
2588:
2587:
2586:
2585:
2581:
2577:
2574:
2571:
2567:
2565:
2560:
2557:
2553:
2550:
2547:
2544:
2541:
2538:
2535:
2531:
2528:; similarly,
2527:
2523:
2519:
2516:
2515:
2513:
2510:
2509:
2506:
2502:
2498:
2497:The Dominator
2493:
2492:
2491:
2490:
2487:
2483:
2479:
2478:Д narchistPig
2475:
2472:
2470:
2466:
2462:
2458:
2454:
2450:
2446:
2442:
2439:
2429:
2425:
2421:
2417:
2413:
2412:
2411:
2407:
2403:
2402:The Dominator
2398:
2397:
2395:
2391:
2387:
2383:
2379:
2378:
2377:
2373:
2369:
2365:
2364:
2363:
2359:
2355:
2354:The Dominator
2350:
2347:
2346:
2339:
2335:
2331:
2330:The Dominator
2326:
2325:
2324:
2323:
2320:
2316:
2312:
2308:
2301:
2297:
2293:
2289:
2285:
2281:
2277:
2273:
2269:
2268:
2267:
2266:
2263:
2260:
2254:
2253:No-brain keep
2251:
2250:
2239:
2235:
2231:
2227:
2226:
2225:
2221:
2217:
2213:
2206:
2202:
2201:
2200:
2199:
2196:
2192:
2188:
2187:The Dominator
2184:
2177:
2173:
2169:
2165:
2161:
2160:
2159:
2155:
2151:
2147:
2143:
2140:
2137:
2134:
2131:
2127:
2124:
2123:
2120:
2119:
2118:
2117:
2114:
2110:
2106:
2102:
2096:
2092:
2088:
2084:
2083:
2082:
2081:
2078:
2074:
2073:
2068:
2065:
2061:
2057:
2054:
2053:
2044:
2040:
2036:
2035:Chriscapitolo
2031:
2030:
2029:
2028:
2025:
2021:
2017:
2016:The Dominator
2012:
2011:
2010:
2009:
2006:
2002:
1998:
1994:
1988:
1983:
1980:
1979:
1978:
1977:
1974:
1970:
1966:
1965:Chriscapitolo
1962:
1957:
1954:
1952:
1949:
1947:
1941:
1937:
1933:
1929:
1925:
1922:
1921:
1914:
1910:
1906:
1902:
1898:
1897:
1895:
1891:
1887:
1883:
1879:
1875:
1874:The Dominator
1871:
1867:
1863:
1862:
1842:
1838:
1834:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1824:
1820:
1819:The Dominator
1816:
1812:
1808:
1807:
1805:
1801:
1797:
1793:
1789:
1785:
1784:
1783:
1779:
1775:
1774:The Dominator
1771:
1767:
1766:
1764:
1760:
1756:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1741:The Dominator
1737:
1736:
1735:
1731:
1727:
1723:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1713:
1709:
1708:The Dominator
1705:
1704:
1700:
1696:
1692:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1682:
1678:
1674:
1673:The Dominator
1670:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1663:
1659:
1655:
1652:
1650:
1646:
1645:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1619:
1615:
1611:
1607:
1603:
1602:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1578:
1573:
1572:
1569:
1565:
1561:
1557:
1551:
1547:
1543:
1539:
1535:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1517:
1513:
1509:
1504:
1500:
1495:
1492:
1491:
1486:
1482:
1478:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1469:
1468:
1462:
1456:
1452:
1449:
1448:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1431:
1425:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1402:
1399:
1398:
1377:
1373:
1370:
1367:
1363:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1350:
1346:
1342:
1335:
1330:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1321:
1318:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1299:The Dominator
1296:
1295:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1276:
1272:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1261:
1258:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1236:The Dominator
1233:
1232:
1231:
1228:
1225:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1207:The Dominator
1204:
1200:
1199:
1196:
1193:
1190:
1183:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1168:The Dominator
1161:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1138:C) A list of
1137:
1134:
1131:
1127:
1124:
1123:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1091:
1088:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1076:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1028:
1024:
1021:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1007:
1006:
999:
995:
991:
990:The Dominator
987:
983:
979:
975:
971:
967:
961:
957:
952:
948:
945:
944:
943:
942:
939:
935:
931:
927:
923:
919:
915:
911:
908:
907:
906:
905:
902:
898:
894:
890:
883:
879:
875:
874:
873:
872:
869:
865:
861:
857:
854:
853:
844:
840:
836:
832:
825:
824:
823:
822:
819:
815:
811:
810:The Dominator
806:
805:
804:
803:
800:
796:
792:
788:
781:
777:
775:
771:
767:
766:The Dominator
763:
762:
761:
760:
757:
753:
749:
744:
741:
740:
735:
731:
727:
726:The Dominator
723:
722:
721:
720:
717:
713:
709:
705:
700:
697:
696:
693:
690:
684:
678:
674:
670:
666:
662:
659:
653:
649:
645:
644:The Dominator
641:
640:
639:
638:
635:
631:
627:
623:
617:
613:
612:
611:
610:
607:
603:
599:
598:The Dominator
595:
591:
588:
586:
582:
578:
574:
568:
563:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
532:
530:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
506:
503:
500:
496:
492:
491:The Dominator
485:
481:
477:
476:
467:
463:
459:
455:
448:
447:
442:
438:
434:
431:
427:
426:
425:
424:
421:
417:
413:
412:The Dominator
408:
407:
406:
405:
402:
398:
394:
390:
386:
385:
384:
383:
380:
376:
372:
368:
361:
356:
352:
351:
350:
349:
346:
342:
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
318:
315:
313:
309:
305:
304:The Dominator
301:
297:
293:
288:
283:
280:
276:
273:
272:
266:
260:
256:
252:
249:
248:
247:
243:
239:
234:
231:
230:
229:
228:
225:
224:
218:
207:
201:
197:
193:
189:
184:
180:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
158:
151:
147:
145:
142:
140:
137:
135:
132:
130:
127:
125:
122:
119:
115:
112:
108:
105:
101:
99:
96:
93:
89:
81:
78:
76:
75:
71:
67:
63:
58:
54:
47:
45:
40:
34:
33:
25:
19:
2711:
2708:
2703:
2687:WP:NOT#STATS
2682:
2669:
2652:
2640:Collectonian
2635:
2630:
2613:
2575:
2561:
2551:
2545:
2539:
2530:Dayton, Ohio
2517:
2511:
2473:
2440:
2348:
2299:
2296:WP:NOT#STATS
2288:WP:NOT#IINFO
2279:
2275:
2271:
2252:
2204:
2146:WP:NOT#IINFO
2142:WP:NOT#STATS
2129:
2126:WP:NOT#IINFO
2095:WP:NOT#STATS
2087:WP:NOT#IINFO
2071:
2055:
1986:
1955:
1945:
1935:
1923:
1900:
1869:
1865:
1770:WP:NOT#STATS
1721:
1648:
1647:
1613:
1605:
1601:Nil by Mouth
1599:
1576:
1537:
1533:
1529:
1493:
1463:
1450:
1400:
1368:
1256:
1181:
1164:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1148:Pulp Fiction
1147:
1143:
1139:
1125:
1086:
1045:
1036:
1019:
1008:
985:
959:
955:
950:
882:synthesizing
877:
855:
742:
703:
698:
669:WP:NOT#STATS
665:WP:NOT#IINFO
660:
615:
589:
561:
557:
549:
545:
542:WP:NOT#STATS
538:WP:NOT#IINFO
533:
517:WP:NOT#STATS
509:well-sourced
504:
479:
429:
387:So why does
359:
354:
333:no consensus
332:
328:
324:
316:
298:, or create
291:
281:
267:
258:
250:
232:
219:
211:
62:WP:NOT#STATS
57:WP:NOT#STATS
52:
50:
38:
35:
2615:research.--
2590:Spacepotato
2461:Vegaswikian
2420:Dorftrottel
2390:Dorftrottel
2172:Dorftrottel
2162:What about
1905:Dorftrottel
1890:Dorftrottel
1837:Dorftrottel
1800:Dorftrottel
1759:Dorftrottel
1695:Dorftrottel
1658:Dorftrottel
1618:synthesized
1184:per Cas --
930:Spacepotato
860:Spacepotato
682:Orange Mike
507:Article is
505:Weak delete
2424:February 2
2400:minute".--
2394:January 31
2292:WP:NOT#DIR
2176:January 30
2136:WP:NOT#DIR
2091:WP:NOT#DIR
2064:Dihydrogen
1909:February 2
1894:January 30
1841:January 29
1804:January 29
1763:January 29
1699:January 29
1662:January 29
1526:WP:NOT#DIR
1460:RogueNinja
1271:statistics
1205:article.--
1152:South Park
960:South Park
956:Goodfellas
562:not famous
550:South Park
546:Goodfellas
513:verifiable
433:JamesLucas
264:RogueNinja
216:RogueNinja
2522:Moose Jaw
2258:скоморохъ
1940:synthesis
1884:ranking.
1542:synthesis
1536:Note the
1424:directory
1334:synthesis
1275:directory
1050:directory
748:Catchpole
708:Mandsford
66:Sandstein
2416:Reinoutr
2382:mistaken
2368:Reinoutr
2230:Reinoutr
2150:Reinoutr
2067:Monoxide
1726:Reinoutr
1720:Quote: "
1585:Einemnet
1508:Einemnet
1477:Reinoutr
1372:contribs
1362:Casliber
1260:contribs
1250:Casliber
1144:Scarface
1090:contribs
1080:Casliber
1037:anything
1023:contribs
1013:Casliber
706:: zero"
675:(if not
673:WP:SYNTH
548:and the
337:Reinoutr
206:View log
2512:Comment
2422:14:06,
2396:, 2008
2392:08:07,
2349:Comment
2315:contrib
2220:contrib
2174:21:00,
2109:contrib
2001:contrib
1907:14:07,
1903:. User:
1901:deleted
1896:, 2008
1892:20:08,
1882:made-up
1839:16:50,
1806:, 2008
1802:16:28,
1765:, 2008
1761:16:14,
1697:15:27,
1660:13:42,
1649:Keepish
1633:contrib
1564:contrib
1538:because
1532:because
1503:48 Hrs.
1451:Comment
1438:contrib
1405:Lugnuts
1349:contrib
1289:contrib
1140:notable
1126:Comment
1111:contrib
1068:contrib
974:contrib
897:contrib
878:editors
839:contrib
808:stay.--
795:contrib
778:Please
630:contrib
581:contrib
558:because
462:contrib
410:list.--
375:contrib
282:Comment
251:Comment
179:protect
174:history
2692:smerge
2657:JJJ999
2653:Delete
2631:Delete
2441:Delete
2294:, and
2178:, 2008
2122:AfD):
2093:, and
1924:Delete
1843:, 2008
1701:, 2008
1664:, 2008
1160:Casino
661:Delete
590:Delete
534:Delete
183:delete
2696:Pomte
2679:truth
2164:WP:OR
2072:party
1946:Steve
677:WP:OR
663:as a
616:merge
521:Kamek
430:Keep.
294:into
292:merge
200:views
192:watch
188:links
16:<
2683:know
2670:Keep
2661:talk
2644:talk
2621:talk
2594:talk
2501:talk
2482:talk
2474:Keep
2465:talk
2426:, 20
2406:talk
2386:User
2372:talk
2358:talk
2334:talk
2317:) -
2311:talk
2306:Erik
2284:fuck
2234:talk
2222:) -
2216:talk
2211:Erik
2191:talk
2168:User
2154:talk
2111:) -
2105:talk
2100:Erik
2056:Keep
2039:talk
2020:talk
2003:) -
1997:talk
1992:Erik
1969:talk
1956:Keep
1911:, 20
1886:User
1878:fuck
1833:User
1823:talk
1796:User
1778:talk
1755:User
1745:talk
1730:talk
1712:talk
1691:User
1677:talk
1654:User
1635:) -
1629:talk
1624:Erik
1610:this
1589:talk
1581:Fuck
1566:) -
1560:talk
1555:Erik
1548:for
1512:talk
1494:Keep
1481:talk
1466:talk
1440:) -
1434:talk
1429:Erik
1409:talk
1401:Keep
1366:talk
1351:) -
1345:talk
1340:Erik
1329:fuck
1303:talk
1291:) -
1285:talk
1280:Erik
1254:talk
1240:talk
1211:talk
1182:Keep
1172:talk
1113:) -
1107:talk
1102:Erik
1084:talk
1070:) -
1064:talk
1059:Erik
1052:for
1017:talk
1009:Keep
994:talk
976:) -
970:talk
965:Erik
962:). —
958:and
934:talk
899:) -
893:talk
888:Erik
864:talk
856:Keep
841:) -
835:talk
830:Erik
814:talk
797:) -
791:talk
786:Erik
770:talk
752:talk
743:Keep
730:talk
712:talk
702:of "
699:Keep
688:Talk
667:and
648:talk
632:) -
626:talk
621:Erik
602:talk
594:Fuck
583:) -
577:talk
572:Erik
540:and
536:per
525:talk
511:and
495:talk
480:Note
464:) -
458:talk
453:Erik
437:talk
416:talk
397:talk
377:) -
371:talk
366:Erik
341:talk
329:keep
317:Keep
308:talk
296:Fuck
270:talk
242:talk
233:Keep
222:talk
196:logs
170:talk
166:edit
70:talk
2459:.
2455:or
2280:not
2276:not
2205:not
2097:. —
1987:not
1936:for
1868:not
1817:.--
1813:or
1790:or
1772:.--
1577:not
1552:. —
1426:. —
1158:or
1046:not
951:not
596:.--
486:.
325:six
302:.--
259:not
257:is
204:– (
2663:)
2646:)
2623:)
2596:)
2503:)
2484:)
2467:)
2451:,
2447:,
2428:08
2408:)
2384:.
2374:)
2360:)
2336:)
2313:•
2290:,
2236:)
2218:•
2193:)
2166:?
2156:)
2107:•
2089:,
2075:)
2041:)
2022:)
1999:•
1971:)
1913:08
1825:)
1780:)
1747:)
1732:)
1714:)
1679:)
1631:•
1612::
1591:)
1562:•
1528::
1514:)
1483:)
1436:•
1411:)
1374:)
1347:•
1305:)
1287:•
1262:)
1242:)
1213:)
1174:)
1154:,
1150:,
1146:,
1109:•
1092:)
1066:•
1025:)
996:)
972:•
936:)
924:,
920:,
916:,
895:•
866:)
837:•
816:)
793:•
772:)
754:)
732:)
714:)
685:|
650:)
628:•
604:)
579:•
527:)
497:)
489:--
460:•
439:)
418:)
399:)
373:•
343:)
310:)
253::
244:)
198:|
194:|
190:|
186:|
181:|
177:|
172:|
168:|
72:)
2659:(
2642:(
2634:(
2619:(
2592:(
2582:.
2566:.
2536:.
2499:(
2480:(
2463:(
2404:(
2388::
2370:(
2356:(
2332:(
2309:(
2303:—
2232:(
2214:(
2189:(
2170::
2152:(
2103:(
2069:(
2037:(
2018:(
1995:(
1967:(
1888::
1835::
1821:(
1798::
1776:(
1757::
1743:(
1728:(
1710:(
1693::
1675:(
1656::
1627:(
1587:(
1558:(
1510:(
1479:(
1432:(
1407:(
1369:·
1364:(
1343:(
1301:(
1283:(
1257:·
1252:(
1238:(
1209:(
1170:(
1105:(
1087:·
1082:(
1062:(
1020:·
1015:(
992:(
968:(
932:(
891:(
885:—
862:(
833:(
827:—
812:(
789:(
768:(
750:(
728:(
710:(
646:(
624:(
600:(
575:(
523:(
493:(
456:(
435:(
414:(
395:(
369:(
363:—
360:n
339:(
306:(
240:(
208:)
202:)
164:(
68:(
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.