Deletion of List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" (8th nomination)

Comment: WP:INDISCRIMINATE states that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Even if one argues that the word "fuck" is notable, that does not automatically transfer notability to any medium where the word was used. I see this article as fancruft and I don't see notability in it. I also question the |reliability of the sources used to obtain an exact number of profane words since many of them seem to give estimates yet the article claims specific figures. For example, the http://preview.gospelcom.net/rev.php3?1668 preview online source for ''Menace II Society'' cites that the word was obscenities were used in "roughly 317 occurrences" and the "f-word" was cited as being used 228 times. If our only source specifically uses the word "roughly", we should not be presenting an exact number because one was never specified. By the way, even though the above source extimates 317 228, the Wikipedia article lists it as 300. Where was this number derived from? I think that this article is based on estimates from questionable sources and lacks clear notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: while I throw |snowballs at about half the !voters
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: no third-party sources to demonstrate that the subject has been discussed in serious fashion outside Wikipedia. Moreover, the list is indiscriminate, sets up a slippery slope and consists of an |OR |synthesis
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:SYN)

Comment: I see no reason to alter past consensus on this. The article has plenty of sources and clearly meets . Some people have claimed it is |original research, but by the criteria they use, ''any'' list article would either be copied directly from somewhere else (and thus be a probable copyvio) or else constitute original research
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOR)

Comment: How many times must an article undergo a  keep? This is starting to remind me of the infamous recurring GNAA AFD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: for fuck's sake. It's an indiscriminate list which relies upon unreliable sources, '''such as IMDb'''. I'm disappointed that the majority of !keep votes here amount to little more than 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: I have nothing against the word itself,but the actual article is just a list of movies notable because of how many times they use the word "fuck".This isn't ,it's a just a reasonable nom to delete a not-so-reasonable article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCENSORED)