Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fucking shit

Fucking shit

Fucking shit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, see WP:NOTDIC. No hope for this ever becoming encyclopedic. Currently labelled as a dab page, but is disambiguating zero items (the two "see alsos" are not valid links, as they are not ambiguous with the title). France3470 (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - no hope of becoming a full article. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I just declined a speedy placed on the article as "G6, routine housekeeping. This is not a disam page." Without any comment on the merits of the afd, this is not an acceptable use of speedy. It is true that this is not a disam p, but the solution to that --if the article were otherwise acceptable -- would be to remove the category label. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Actually when I created it, it was a disambiguation page with 5 items. Another colleague intervened deleting all the disambiguation items, but keeping the disambiguation tag... Thus the discrepancy. Here were the disambiguation items before being taken out: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Fucking_shit&diff=504981814&oldid=504981528 I can understand why some people are touchy about what they consider an offensive term, thus trying to delete such pages, but "fucking shit" is not only one of the most commonly used terms people use, but is also used in for example titles of songs released, books written, thus the need to keep the term not as a dictionary term, but as a disambiguation by re-establishing the disambiguation items as I have restored them. werldwayd (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Even with the additions, everything on the page is a partial title match. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete unless it's transformed from a WP:DICDEF/WP:PTM violation into an article. It being offensive is not a problem, the problem is that it's not its own concept. Book search shows typical use (that can be covered by a dictionary entry), no coverage of the term itself. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: no appropriate content beyond the sum of the two words. PamD 11:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Fails as a subject entry because it's just a combination of two swearwords (compare bloody hell which isn't notable either), fails as disambiguation because there's nothing called "fucking shit" to be disambiguated - it's all partial matches. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete As perWP:NOTDIC Hillabear10 (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• No opinion either way, but I can't believe we're arguing about this fucking shit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well I guess Wikipedia is the place for practically anything under the sun. Fucking shit being one of the most used terms has a place in Wikipedia despite what everybody above thinks. You can delete it today and a concensus has been formed I suppose to do exactly that. But I'm an optimist. The day will come, quite soon hopefully, when we have enough Fucking shit books, albums, songs, even worldwide brands I dare say (should I register the rights myself before they are taken? FCUK anyone?) to justify the presence of this truly practical term that applies to ... oh so many people I know and doubtlessly you know as well... There are tens of songs that have titles like f***ing sh*t, yet they don't have the guts to print the full fucking title... Incidentally what a shame the domain name http://fuckingshit.com/ is taken but yet does not have enough valuable content on the site. The owner is sitting on gold shit and doesn't realise it BTW, I will be keeping it on my active agenda for later revival on Wikipedia with more valid entries. LOL werldwayd (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not that the listing of similarities doesn't have value. It might be welcomed on everything2 or other places. The problem is that it doesn't fit into any of the criteria that wikipedia has for 1) "an article" or 2) "a list" or 3) "a disambiguation page" (disambig pages are only meant to list exact title matches, ie we don't have a disambig page for every song/book/movie/etc with the word "green" somewhere in the title... See green (disambiguation) for example. Things are only listed when the title is just "green". (simplified. 10 years of figuring out what works, and discussing "edge-cases" = disambig details)).

If you do make a page at everything2, or one of the other places, be sure to do more searching first; you missed quite a few ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 07:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Some mighty fine work you're doing here, Newyorkbrad. --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)