Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One-fuck rule

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to Motion Picture Association film rating system. There is serious doubt that this is independently notable (and very few defensible arguments to that effect), but even most "delete" opinions tell us that it should be covered in the context of the rating system. Sandstein 22:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One-fuck rule[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

One-fuck rule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is a place on Wikipedia for discussion of profanity and how it affects MPAA ratings, and that place is Motion Picture Association film rating system. There is no evidence that this sub-issue of a sub-issue is significant enough to split off into its own article. Discussion at DYK speculates that editor who created an article did so in an attempt to get profanity on the main page. I have no idea what their motives were, and I have long been an admirer of a creative and boundary-pushing hooks at DYK. Where I don't think we should pushing boundaries and getting creative is in article titles. NONE of the sources cited name this rule as it is named by the article, so this is a case of Wikipedia creating a neologism, which should be out of bounds. Gamaliel (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Does not seem to be a codified guideline. No reason to hold a page for a non codified guideline that seems to have picked up some steam in internet-speak. Ktin (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Motion Picture Association film rating system (the appropriate location as noted by the nominator) without using the term "one-fuck rule" unless it's in a quote or supported by substantial sources. The appropriate section would be Motion Picture Association film rating system § Language. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is part of a series of recent DYK submissions by The C of E somewhat littered with the F-word, to put the word on Wikipedia's Main Page. The editor is currently under restrictions for similar inflammatory editing problems at DYK. — Maile (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And how does that affect the suitability of this page for Wikipedia, beyond being a clear ad hominem deflection? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The information is about the limit of PG-13 rating, so it should go to Motion Picture Association film rating system. Don't even keep it as a redirect because the title is a neologism. Neo-corelight (Talk) 04:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The title is an WP:NDESC title because there is no official title for it, but the concept (or popular opinion of it) is that it does exist. There are sources that affirm it in the minds of the public that films can only say "fuck" once to avoid a harsher rating, more than enough to fulfil WP:GNG. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    was the article created for a dyk submission? ~ cygnis insignis 07:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge without turning into a redirect. It doesn't seem like the term is widely used or would be a common search term for readers looking up the MPA BuySomeApples (talk) 07:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • (On the fence on whether to delete or merge after reading some of the newer votes.) BuySomeApples (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Objections to the title of the article as a neologism are without merit: the title has merely been selected as the name of an existing rule, if the title is the problem then another can be selected. The Rule itself is a pass for WP:GNG as it is the subject of multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources. Particularly Along Those Lines: The Boundaries That Create Our World gives a full page of coverage to it, Sex & sensibility : reflections on forbidden mirrors and the will to censor also gives a page or so of coverage to it (but calls it the "automatic language rule"). Searching for the "automatic language rule" and "MPAA" brings up a number of hits (1 2 3 4 5 6). The rule has been around for a while is broader than just PG-13 rating decisions (e.g., there was significant discussion around it related to All the President's Men and its "R" rating). Suggest renaming to "Automatic language rule" as it appears that this is the common name, if more boring, for this rule. Merging to Motion Picture Association film rating system is not appropriate as it would be undue under that article and may result in an article that is too long. FOARP (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It is obvious from the sources given above, that it is neither a seperate encyclopedic topic, nor should the topic be a separate article from the ratings article -- the necessary encyclopedic context is within the ratings scheme, which should include both explanation of factors and criticism of the scheme. (see also, WP:NOPAGE) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No need for a separate page as the subject is already covered adequately at Motion_Picture_Association_film_rating_system#Language. It seems an unlikely search term at the present title so I don't think a redirect would be useful. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, anything that needs to be said about this aspect of film rating can be said better elsewhere, we don't need a slew of micro-articles on the matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete/merge This is textbook example of when WP:NOPAGE applies, as the content can be well covered in the main article. Reywas92Talk 17:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no redirect needed. This is not a particularly well-used phrasing of an MPAA rule. Some content can be Merged into the above article per the nominator's suggestion. It's also not clear to what extent this alleged guideline has been formalized by the MPAA, and the sources in the article don't provide details that can be used to verify this. AlexEng(TALK) 22:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with redirect - this is very obviously a topic that does not make sense to talk about in isolation, without relevant secondary material to justify there being any interest in it in its own right. Otherwise, at most, it should be a section on the relevant article about MPAA classifications. That being said, the objections to the redirect are specious: it doesn't matter if it's not a commonly used term, as that's the exact reason why redirects exist in the first place. All it would be doing it making it harder for people who have heard the term to find information out about it. Theknightwho (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: The fact that the title contains the word "fuck" is irrelevant to anything, but while this is a real phenomenon with sourcing, there doesn't seem to be enough meat in it to justify its own article, and I also don't see enough that adding it to Motion_Picture_Association_film_rating_system#Language would constitute undue weight. A lot of it is there already. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficient substantial WP:SIGCOV to warrant an independent article. SN54129 00:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Motion Picture Association film rating system. The phenomenon -- or perceived phenomenon, given it doesn't track practice too well -- is actually quite well-known, but not covered in sufficient depth to produce a non-anemic article, or with sufficient separation from the broader topic to be better covered for the reader as a stand-alone article. As Theknightwho says, it doesn't particularly stand in isolation well. (Motion picture rating systems are a long-term interest of mine, if not one very reflected in my editing areas. If I thought a stand-alone for this was justified, I'd have written it.) Vaticidalprophet 00:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - FYI, another term in the same vein that I came across today is the Mull of Kintyre test, which does have its own short section and redirect. Let's just do something like that. Theknightwho (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sorry, I'd be more sanguine about the keep or merge arguments if this article had better sourcing, rather than to blogs and pop culture sites. The title is absolutely a neologism, and I challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise. Ravenswing 15:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sourcing isn't the problem. Several high-quality book sources were given above. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not completely without precedent; for example, here is an example of One Fuck rule in a 2020 news story. Here's another from a high-profile blog in 2014. It's a pretty obvious coinage, I think. XOR'easter (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Motion Picture Association film rating system. There is no doubt that there is some coverage about this (as demonstrated by the given sources), and many if not most of the delete !votes do not seem to make an argument why this should be deleted instead of merged (in fact, many of them explicitly seem to be arguing for actual merging, with arguments such as "No need for a separate page"...). The presence of the word "fuck" in the title has otherwise absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the issue. However, given the paucity of information in the current article, and the fact there is plenty of space at Motion_Picture_Association_film_rating_system#Language to add this, WP:NOPAGE would apply. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per RandomCanadian. This is a topic that has received coverage, but it's only part of the larger picture of the rating system. Leave the redirect in place because the term or close variants have been used in discussing the matter, and it therefore is a plausible search term. And redirects are cheap anyway. oknazevad (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge: reasonable sources and a reasonable topic. The information is usable somewhere. More sources given above show room for expansion. AfD isn't the place to decide article title, nor the best one for determining scope of a subject. The closer should make sure to properly assess "delete" !votes that say a merge is acceptable. — Bilorv (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge, per Bilorv. -- The Anome (talk) 10:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. significant in the world, and a understandable title. The sources are sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 16 January 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/One-fuck_rule&oldid=1066549138"