Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expletive infixation
and in this case, I'm pulling out  - there's not very much documentation to hold it up against  or , but it's out there enough.  First, there is little documentation on this (or, really, any) coloquialism phenom, and most of what's out there is...well, pretty much through word of mouth.  The closest you'll get to documentation is, say, a Stephen King novel, for the simple reason that King's books just kind of come out that way. Second, the only really good way to document this is to provide a list of examples with an explanation of the concept - and at the time of my !vote here, that's pretty much what the article does. The side effect is that we hedge on being a primary resource - a little dangerous considering the nature of Wikipedia, but still
— User:Dennisthe2, 16:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:IAR||WP:N||WP:RS (Wikipedia:Ignore all rules)