Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional expletives

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 delete. -

List of fictional expletives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Indiscriminate, unencyclopedic list, with potential to grow forever. - ∅ (∅), 02:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per
  WP:NOT and nom. Not verifiable in as to what is and isn't included.--Dacium 02:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. MER-C 02:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and as indiscriminate list without any context for its entries. Otto4711 04:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  Wikipedia ain't one of them new fangled shiny books of words y'all. -- IslaySolomon | talk 04:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete the fracking article, indiscriminate cruftmikm_t 05:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note, article has been linked from Signpost twice, and leads this poll as the "weirdest, funniest, craziest, and most bizarre entries that the people's encyclopedia has to offer." It's also linked from a few AFDs as a convenient place to merge entries.
  Hate to see it go. Tanj. Gorram socialators. If only we could scope it somehow? --Dhartung | Talk 07:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  SkierRMH 08:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• This list may have the potential to grow forever, but so too does a
  list of Canadian Summer Olympics gold medalists. Having the potential to grow indefinitely is not the same as being excessively broad in scope. Has the subject of innovative expletives in fiction been studied outside of Wikipedia? Yes, it has. But the sources are weak. Do lists like this exist outside of Wikipedia? Yes, they do. The main problem with this article is that it is, basically, a dictionary of words that have no relationship to one another because they originate in unrelated works of fiction. There is no encyclopaedic analysis of the concept of protologistic expletives from works of fiction, and to what extent they have escaped the various works that they originated in, to hang such a list from. A simple list of aviation jokes does not make an encyclopaedia article on aviation jokes (cf. Aviation joke (AfD discussion) and elephant joke (AFD discussion)), and a simple list of innovative expletives from works of fiction does not make an encyclopaedia article on such expletives. Uncle G 10:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete,
  WP:NOT, listcruft. Terence Ong 13:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete ... put this sad thing out of its misery please --TommyOliver 18:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but not really because I don't think the list doesn't "belong" here. Get rid of it because it's unsourced, most of it is non-notable, and because nearly everything that -could- be used as an expletive is on here, fictional or not. If this list were pared down about 95% and only included the real notable ones that aren't just variations of "ass" or "fuck" then I'd feel differently. --UsaSatsui 20:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless better referencing/pruning provided As above, I'm discounting arguments based on
  WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE (that policy is frequently cited against articles for which it doesn't apply). However, as UsaSatsui points out, this list is virtually unreferenced, with little to no assertion of actual published notability. So unless/until the entries on the list can be properly referenced, and non-notable examples pruned to keep the list to a reasonable size, I'm recommending deletion. Dugwiki 22:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• This list rocks--don't delete it! 31 Jan 07 —The preceding
  unsigned comment was added by 155.103.6.254 (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Delete : impossible to maintain or verify the difference between vandalism and valid article additions. Dstanfor 16:19, 2 February 2007 (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.